THE FLORA IONGKONGENSIS. 119 
P. flaccidum, Roxb., P. Donii, Meissn., P. serrulatum, Lag., 
P. jucundum, Meissn., all found on the adjacent mainland, in 
ditches and pools, will most likely prove to be natives of Hong- 
kong. 
*Suæda australis, Moquin. 
Mr. Bentham now (Fl. Austr. v. 206) concurs with J. D. Hooker 
in regarding this as not specifically distinguishable from S. mari- 
tima, Dumort., a plant widely spread over the sea-shores of Europe 
and America. 
*Cinnamomum Burmanni, Blume; teste Meissn. in DC. Prod. xv. 16. 
(=C. dulce, Nees; Benth. Fl. Hongk. 290.) 
I adopt Blume's name, as the oldest, because Meissner iden- 
tified with his plant specimens named C. dulee in Nees von 
Esenbeck's own handwriting. Miquel, however (Ann. Mus. Bot. 
Lugd.-Bat. ii. 195), considers Nees's C. dulce the same as Meiss- 
ner's C. Sieboldi. It is probable that the species have been un- 
justifiably multiplied. I do not think this tree, which supplies, 
unless I err, in part, at least, the Cassia-bark of the Canton 
market, is indigenous to Hongkong. 
*Cinnamomum Neesianum, f. petiolare, Meissn. in DC. Prod. xv. 
26. (=Camphora Parthenoxylon, Benth. Fl. Hongk. 290.) 
Meissner denies that this is identical with Nees's Camphora 
Parth enoxylon. 
*Tetranthera laurifolia, Jacg.; Meissn. in DC. Prod. xv. 178. (=T. 
citrifolia, Benth. Fl. Hongk. 293.) 
Bentham gives Jussieu as the authority for the name adopted by 
him, but without any specific reference: it is very inappropriate, 
and has been abandoned by myself in the ‘Flora Australiensis ’ 
for the present one. 
*Litsea pulchella, Meissn. in DC. Prod. xv. 924. (= Litsza ceylanica, 
Benth. Fl. Hongk. 294, but not of Nees.) 
Not known out of the island. Meissner considers this more 
nearly allied to Z. aciculata, Blume, and L. glauca, Siebold, than 
to L. ceylanica, Nees. 
The natural order Euphorbiacew has been thoroughly revised, 
in the fifteenth volume of DeCandolle's * Prodromus, by Herr 
Johann Müller, of Aargau, who, discarding the old arrangement, 
divides the family into ten tribes and a very great number of 
subtribes, and has made most extensive changes in the circum- 
scription of the genera, differing widely from M. Baillon in his 
