,490 DK. H. F. HANCE ON THE 



on the under surface are somewhat more conspicuous under a lens. 

 I do not at all think they come from a distinct plant ; and the form 

 of leaf in the genus is avowedly very liable to variation*. 



I avail myself of the opportunity, as I am writing on oaks, to 

 mention tliat I find the resinous juice I first noticed f as abound- 

 ing in my Q, Irwlnii^ and whicli I regarded as corroborative of 

 the aflRnity of Corylacece and Jiiglandacece^ to be present in Q. 

 Teijsmanniy Bh, and in an undetermined species in my herbarium 

 from Penang. 



Apart from the interest attaching to the scientific determination 

 of a plant of any considerable economical utility, the identification 

 I have been able to arrive at, through the enlightened interest 

 in science sliown bv Mr. Taintor, of the ordinarv silkworm-oak 

 as Q. vionfjoUca^ ^"^i^y? if I am not mistaken, lead to results of in- 

 finitely greater importance. The perfectly hardy constitution of 

 the oak-silkworm is undeniably proved by the quotations above 

 made from Mr. Meadow^s's Eeport ; and since both Q. mongolica and 

 Q, dentata belong to the Le^idobalani^ and are closely allied not 

 only to the common oak of northern Europe, to which, indeed, 

 Pallas referred the former, but to the whole of the species which 

 extend through that continent and the temperate regions of 

 western Asia, there seems no reason whatever why this insect 

 sliould not be thorouglily domesticated with us : it would pro- 

 bably thrive as well on Q, rolnr as on the Mongolian oak J, and 



* ** La forme du limbc vane frequemmeut, sur le meme rameau, d'une ellipse 

 allongee (oblongue) a la fonae ovee ou obovee, avec toutes les transitions inter- 

 niediaires." — A. DC, in Ann. Sc. "Sat. 1« s^r. xviii, 63. 



t Ann. Sc. Nat. 4*^ ser. xviii. 231 ; Seem. Journ. Eot. i. 183. 



X I consider this assumption to be justified bj the extreme — indeed, extraor- 

 dinary affinity of tbe usually recognized species of Lepidobalanoid oaks. In 

 illustration I may note that, of the 40 figured as species by the late Dr. 

 Kotscliy in his noble work, no less than half are reduced to the rant of 

 varieties by M. Alph. De Candolle, who, furthermore, in his erudite and ex- 

 haustive 'Etude sur TEsp^cedans les Cupulif^res,' shows an evident leaning to 

 regard many of tho3e now acknowledged as being rather ^'espfeces prorisoires. 

 Dr. HooAcr, again, in his interesting treatise ** On three Oaks of Palestine 

 (Trans. Linn. Soc. xxiii. 381 sqq.)^ reduces about 27 species, so called by one 

 or other of the ultra-analytic school of botanists, and 9 of which are ad- 

 mitted by M. De Candolle as distinct, to 3. Dr. Cosson confounded 

 the Soutli-Euiopean and Algerian Q. pseudo-siiher with the Georgian Q- cos* 

 iavecpfolia, C. A. M., which latter has been reduced by C. Koch (and by Grise- 

 bajL-h, Spicil. El. Bum. ii. 336, who adds (J. Lihani, Oliv., kept separate by De 

 Candolle) to Q. vaUonea, Ky. Dr. Hooker admits Q. castanecefoUa as distinct 

 from Q. vallonea, but is doubtful whether he should not refer to it Q. looJc^ 

 Ky,i and even Q, Lllani, He also kt^ps Q. manniferay Lindl., distinct, whilst 



j> 



?j 



