NEW GENUS OF CONIFERAE. 331 
Hab. Ushoko, Shorinzan, Rinkiho, ad pedem montis Morrison 
ad 2000 m., leg. N. Konishi (Feb. anr.o 1904). 
This plant is very interesting on account of the remarkable 
form of the cones, which differ from those of any genus at present 
known to me, so that it is very difficult to establish clearly its 
relation with other forms. 
The habit is that of Cryptomeria, while the cone bears some 
resemblance to that of Cunninghamia. In external appearance 
the cone is like that of Tsuga, but differs so greatly in its 
structure, that tbis hardly needs pointing out. 
So far as my knowledge extends, the plant comes nearest to 
Cunninghamia in the structure of its cones, as seen in the 
arrangement of the seminiferous scales, in the presence of the 
minute bract *, in the attachment and position of the ovule, and 
in the shape of the seed, wing, albumen, and embryo. But it 
differs from that genus in the absence of the secondary squama 
and in the number of the ovules (two on each scale). These two 
points and the even more strikingly different habit of the plaut 
do not allow me to place it in Cunninghamia, and it seems better 
to regard the plant as representing a new genus, Taiwania. 
EXPLANATION OF PLATE 16. 
Fig. 
1. Fragment of a branch, natural size. 
2. Fragment of a young branch, natural size. 
3. Leaves from a fertile branch, enlarged. 
4. Leaf from a young sterile branch. 
5. Scales of the cone with minute bracts at the base. 
6. Scale seen from within, showing two winged seeds. 
7. Scale showing two winged seeds, one partially hidden behind the other. 
8. Scale from the inner side, seeds taken off, showing the traces where 
the seeds were attached. 
9. Scale of a young cone with two abortive ovules. 
10. Ovule showing its reversed position. 
11. Seed. 
12. Albumen. 
13. Embryo. 
(Figs. 2 to 13 enlarged.) 
* Cunninghamia is described as having “ Bractesm distincts nulle" or 
“ Bractez null; " in “ Sieb. et Zucc. Fl. Jap. ii. pp. 6 et 8,” and in * G. Gordon, 
The Pinetum, p. 76," as “ without bracts.” But I convinced myself that there 
is often, if not always, a minute bract at the base of each scale. [See Masters, 
in Journ. Linn. Soc., Bot. vol. xxx. (1895) p. 25.] 
LINN. JOURN.—BOTANY, VOL. XXXVII. 24 
