THE FLORA HONGKONGENSIS. 111 
*Statice. 
S. bicolor, Bunge, to which Mr. Bentham suspected S. sinensis 
to be referable, seems to me to differ in many respects. A plant 
also from Loochoo, gathered by Mr. Charles Wright, is, I think, 
a distinct species, intermediate between £. sinensis, Gir., and S. 
japonica T, S. & Z., which I have described (Ann. Se. Nat. Par. 
ser. 5, v. 236) under the name of S. Wrightiz. 
20. Plumbago zeylanica, Linn.; Boiss. in DC. Prod. xii. 692. 
Not uncommon, in waste places and hedges, on tbe south side 
of the island, and abundant in the neighbourhood of Stanley. 
A common weed in many places on the mainland, extending 
throughout the tropical regions of Asia and Africa, the Cape- 
Verdes, Northern and Eastern Australia, and several of the Po- 
lynesian islands. 
*Mæsa Doræna, Blume, B. coriacea, Hance in Ann. Se. Nat. Par, ser. 
5, v. 225. (= Mesa coriacea, Champ. ; Benth. Fl. Hongk. 204.) 
Not in any way distinguishable as a species from the Japanese 
type, which is found in Fokien province. 
* Ardisia punctata, Lindl., 
though not differing from A. crispa, A. DC., as stated in the 
* Flora Hongkongensis, by obtuse calyx-lobes (for they are often 
quite acute), is very different in habit and especially in inflores- 
cence. I believe the Hongkong plant named 4. crispa to belong 
to A. DeCandolle's variety 6. elegans; and I do not think 4. 
divergens, Roxb., is specifically different. Cfr. ‘Ann. Se. Nat. 
Par.’ ser. 5, v. 226. 
*Symplocos microcarpa, Champ. 
I have little doubt that this, of which I have only seen a single 
specimen, is referable to S. lancifolia, S. & Z. Beyond leaves 
neither the Azaleas of modern writers, Z?hodora, nor Osmothamnus, can be 
maintained as genera,’ but he still retains the name of Loiseleuria for the Euro- 
pean plant. The identification of Azalea squamata with Rhododendron Farrere, 
which I have taken from this memoir, I had myself arrived at, from the cha- 
racters given in the ‘Prodromus, as far back as 1845, and written on my own 
herbarium ticket ; but I subsequently supposed it impossible that Prof. Lindley, 
who was so intimately connected with horticulture, could have described as 
new a species which he must have scen in cultivation years before, and which 
had been figured by Sweet. 
T This, Mr. Bentham (Fl. Austr. iv. 267) reduces to S, australis, Spr., and 
he does not think $, sinensis will prove distinct. 
