ULMACEAE. — CELTIS 277 
Western Hupeh: Ichang, A. Henry (No. 2262, type; with ripe fruits); 
same locality, glens in gorges, August 1901 (Veitch Exped. No. 1761? in Herb. New 
York Bot. Gard.; with almost ripe fruits). 
This species looks very distinct on account of its leaves, which in shape resemble 
those of a Cercis, but, as I have stated under C. labilis Schneider, on p. 267, 
Wilson's No. 1761? seems to be somewhat intermediate between these two species. 
According to Wilson C. labilis is a tree, while No. 1761? forms only a low shrub. 
The stone of the only fruit of the type I have seen is very smooth, like that of C. 
Bungeana Blume, while in the typical C. labilis the stones are more or less finely 
pitted and ribbed; but the stones of the almost ripe fruits of No. 1761* are some- 
what intermediate between these two conditions. 
6. Celtis sinensis Persoon, Syn. I. 292 (1805), descriptio valde manca, sed fide 
Blume. — Willdenow, Berl. Baumz. ed. 2, 81 (1811); Enum. Pl. Hort. Berol. 
Suppl. 68 (1813). — Schultes in Roemer & Schultes, Syst. VI. 306 (1820). — Lou- 
don, Arb. Brit. III. 1416 (an pro parte?) (1838). — Spach in Ann. Sci. Nat. sér. 2, 
XV. 37 (1841); Hist. Vég. XI. 126 (1842). — Blume, Mus. Bot. Lugd.-Bat. II. 
70 (1852). — Bentham, Fl. Hongk. 324 (1861).— Miquel in Ann. Mus. Lugd- 
Bat. II. 197 (1865-6); Prol. Fl. Jap. 129 (1866-7). — K. Koch, Dendr. 1l. pt. 1, 
431 (1872). — Maximowiez in Bull. Acad. Sci. St. Pétersbourg, XVIII. 293 (1873); 
in Mél. Biol. IX. 27 (1873), exclud. specim. e China boreali. — Planchon in De 
Candolle, Prodr. XVII. 172 (1873). — Franchet & Savatier, Enum. Pl. Jap. 1. 431 
(1875). — Dippel, Handb. Laubholzk. II. 46 (1892), exclud. icone. — Hemsley in 
Jour. Linn. Soc. XXVI. 450 (pro parte) (1894). — Henry in Trans. As. Soc. Jap. 
XXIV. Suppl. 85 (List Pl. Formosa) (1896), exclud. No. 1616. — Mouillefert, 
Traité Arb. Arbriss. II. 1209 (1898). — Palibin in Act. Hort. Petrop. XVIII. 190 
(Consp. Fl. Kor. YI.) (1900). — Schneider, Ill. Handb. Laubholzk. I. 229, fig. 147 r-r*, 
148 r (1904). — Matsumura & Hayata in Jour. Coll. Sci. Tokyo, XXII, 370 
(Enum. Pl. Formos.) (1906). — Nakai in Jour. Coll. Sci. Tokyo, XXXI. 192 (Fl. 
Kor. IL) (1911); Icon. Pl. Koisik. I. 3, t. 2, fig. II. (1911). — Matsumura, Ind. 
Pl. Jap. Il. pt. 2, 32 (1912). — Dunn & Tutcher in Kew Bull. Misc. Inform. add. 
ser. X. 243 (Fl. Kwangtung & Hongk.) (1912). 
Celtis orientalis Thunberg, Fl. Jap. 114 (non Linnaeus) (1784). 
Celtis Willdenowiana Schultes in Roemer & Schultes, Syst. VI. 306 (1820).— 
Loudon, Arb. Brit. III. 1416 (1838). — Siebold & Zuccarini in Abh. Akad. Münch. 
IV. pt. 3, 222 (Fl. Jap. Fam. Nat. II. 98) (1846). — Planchon in Ann. Sci. Nat. 
sér. 3, X. 287 (1848). 
Celtis japonica Planchon in De Candolle, Prodr. XVII. 172 (1873). 
CHINA. Kwangtung: Soo-kun-po, March 8, 1893, C. Ford (flowering 
branchlets). Hongkong: 1853-6, C. Wright (No. 457; with very young fruits); 
same locality (No. 1068 Herb. Hance; sub nom. C. serotina Planch. distributa; vix 
indigena; with young fruits); same locality, planted, C. Wilford (with flowers and 
With very young fruits). Kiangsu: “S'un Ss’on Chi," temple of the God of 
War, June 2, 1913, J. Bailie (No. 6; with unripe fruits). Formosa: without 
precise locality, 1864, R. Oldham (Nos. 512, 513; both with unripe fruits). 
„> The description runs: “ fol. lato-ovatis crenatis glaberrimis, venis prominen- 
tibus. Hab. in Sina. Ex. hort. Celsii. Fol. majuscula, obtusa.” According to the 
Phrase “ fol, glaberrimis,” one might be inclined to refer Persoon’s name to what is 
now called C. Bungeana, but Blume had seen Persoon’s type, and says: Specimen 
genumum Herbarii Person exacte congruit cum aliis arborum juniorum ex Japonia. 
It is on the authority of Blume's statements that I accept Persoon's name for 
Species. 
