MAGNOLIACEAE. — MAGNOLIA 401 
few words must be said about the source of this confusion. The first mention of 
Asiatic Magnolias is found in Kaempfer’s Amoenitates exoticae, where he describes 
three species under the names (1) Sini . . . vulgo Kobus, which is M. kobus 
De Candolle, (2) Mokkwuren frutex tulipifer and (3) Mokkwuren flore albo. 
In 1791 Banks published the excellent and very characteristie drawings by 
Kaempfer of these three species, but made the unfortunate mistake of inter- 
changing the plates of the last two species, referring plate 43 (Mokkwuren 1.) 
which represents Mokkwuren flore albo to Mokkwuren [frutex tulipifer], and 
plate 44 (Mokkwuren 2.) which represents Mokkwuren frutex tulipifer to 
Mokkwuren flore albo. In the same year Desrousseaux in Lamarck, Ency- 
clopédie méthodique drew up descriptions of these two species under the names 
M. denudata and M. liliflora; his descriptions are based entirely on Kaempfer's 
plates, except as to the color of the flowers which he took from Kaempfer's descrip- 
tion, accepting the quotations as given by Banks; this caused him to attribute 
to M. denudata red flowers and to M. liliflora white flowers. He apparently 
did not compare carefully enough the plates with Kaempfer's original de- 
scription; if he had he would have detected Banks’ error. Kaempfer describes 
Mokkwuren frutex tulipifer . . . flore Lilio-narcissi rubente as similar to Sini 
. vulgo Kobus, the flowers of which he calls * Tulipam Liliumve album 
vulgare petalorum numero et magnitudine exprimentibus . . ."; these words 
undoubtedly refer to a flower with six petals, as plate 44 shows, while in de- 
scribing Mokkwuren flore albo he says “ novemque plerumque petalis," exactly 
as shown in plate 43. "This proves conclusively that Kaempfer did not attribute 
red flowers to his drawing published by Banks as plate 43, as one is lead to believe 
from Bank's quotation, and that this plate represents Mokkwuren flore albo, and 
therefore has white flowers. Maximowicz (l. c.) apparently had arrived at the 
same conclusions, as he quotes under M. conspicua: * Mokkwuren Ic. Kaempf. 
t. 43 — Mokkwuren fl. albo novem plerumque petalis cet, Kaempf. Amoen. 845," 
but he does not mention Desrousseaux's names. 
The fact that Desrousseaux describes the flowers as red instead of white, owing 
to a wrong citation in the synonymy, is not a sufficient reason to reject his name. 
De Candolle made the same mistake in describing M. kobus; he quotes M. gracilis 
Salisbury as a synonym and describes the flowers as red, taking the description of 
the color from the colored plate of M. gracilis. "There are also numerous other in- 
Stances where the color of the flowers has been incorrectly given in the original 
description without affecting the validity of the name. The acceptance of the 
name M. denudata fortunately makes it unnecessary to decide whether M. precia 
Correa or M. conspicua Salisbury is the older name. 
Magnolia denudata, var. purpurascens Rehder & Wilson, n. comb. 
Magnolia conspicua, var. purpurascens Maximowicz in Bull. Acad. Sci. St. 
Pétersbourg, XVII. 419 (1872); in Mél. Biol. VIII. 509 (1872). 
Magnolia obovata Keisuke Ito, Fig. Descr. Pl. Koishikawa Bot. Gard. I. t. 8 
‘t Sarasa-renge " (non Thunberg) (1884). 
Western Hupeh: Changyang Hsien, woods, thickets and open 
country, alt. 1300-1800 m., common, April 14 and September 1907 
(No. 278; tree 5-18 m. tall, 0.3-2 m. girth, flowers rosy pink, fragrant); 
Hsing-shan Hsien, woodlands, alt. 13-1500 m., common, September 
1907 (No. 373; tree 5-18 m. tall, 0.3-2 m. girth); Fang Hsien, moist 
