THE FLORA HONGKONGENSIS. 125 
style, the genera Fagus, Quercus, and Cyclobalanopsis—in the 
second, to which he attributes erect male amenta, and styles 
stigmatic only at the apex, Castanea, Castanopsis, Pasania, and 
Cyclobalanus, the limits of these genera being somewhat mo- 
dified from the sections of former writers, on which they are 
partly founded. I had myself suggested the combination of both 
Castanea and Castanopsis with Quercus (Journ. Linn. Soc. x. 
201), there not seeming to be any greater diversity of types 
within the genus, as thus limited, than in Ficus, which most bo- 
tanists concur in preserving intact; but M. (Ersted has un- 
doubtedly shown cause for a respectful consideration of his 
views. 
M. Casimir de Candolle, who has revised the Piperacez for 
the Prodromus, has reduced nearly all Miquel’s genera to Piper, 
aud mentions the following species, all belonging to his section 
Hupiper, as occurring in Hongkong. I cannot certainly identify 
them with those described by Mr. Bentham, except the last ; and 
he appears to record the second and third, which are differently 
named in the ‘Flora Hongkongensis, only on Dr. Seemann's 
authority in the ‘ Botany of the Herald.’ 
Piper hongkongensis, Cas. DC. in DC. Prod. xvi. i. 347. 
Piper Betle, Linn.; Cas. DC. in DC. Prod. xvi. 1. 359. 
Piper arcuatum, Blume; Cas. DC. in DC. Prod, xvi. 1. 360. 
Piper sinense, Cas, DC. in DC. Prod. xvi. 1. 361. (=Chavica sinensis, 
Champ.; Benth. Fl. Hongk. 335.) 
*Pinus sinensis, Lamb. 
Prof. Parlatore, in his recension of the Pinaceæ for De Can- 
dolle's Prodromus (xvi. 2. 389), states that the North Chinese 
and Japanese tree usually considered to be Pinus Massoniana, 
Lamb., is a distinct species, for which he proposes the name of P. 
Thunbergii ; and that Lambert’s true species is identical with his 
P. sinensis, to which he therefore restores the other name. But, 
supposing him to be correct in this decision, the suggested change 
is surely not only unnecessary, but objectionable—because, as there 
is no doubt that the tree so universal in Southern China is Lam- 
bert’s P. sinensis, to substitute for this name another which, 
whether rightly or wrongly, has invariably been attributed to a 
different species, ean only be productive of ambiguity and confu- 
sion, and has no argument whatever to recommend it. 
33. Nechamandra Roxburghi, Planch. in Ann. Sc. Nat. Par. ser. 3, xi. 
78; Mig. Fl. Ind. Bat. iii. 235. 
