294 WILSON EXPEDITION TO CHINA 
This species looks like a very glabrous variety of M. cathayana Hemsley, but 
I think it better to make it a species on account of the distinctly longer style and 
the long peduncles. The style is of about the same length as in M. acidosa Griffith, 
but in its narrow cylindric fruiting aments, in the shape of its leaves and in other 
characters M. notabilis belongs to the same group as M. cathayana and M. 
laevigata Wallich, which seem to represent a distinct section. 
Morus alba Linnaeus, Spec. 986 (1753). — Roxburgh, Fl. Ind. 
ed. 2, III. 594 (1832). — Loudon, Arb. Brit. III. 1348 (1838). — 
Moretti in Giorn. Ist. Lombardo, I. 180 (1841); Prodr. Monog. Gen. 
Morus, 19 (1842). — Spach, Hist. Vég. XI. 42 (1842). — Seringe, 
Descr. Cult. Muriers, 191, t. 1-18 (1855). — Kirchner in Petzold & 
Kirchner, Arb. Musc. 543 (1864).— Miquel in Ann. Mus. Lugd.- 
Bat. II. 197 (1866); Prol. Fl. Jap. 129 (1866). — Brandis, Forest 
Fl. Ind. 407, t. 47 (an pro parte?) (1874); Ind. Trees, 612 (1906). — 
Franchet & Savatier, Enum. Pl. Jap. I. 432 (1875). — Hooker f., 
Fl. Brit. Ind. V. 492 (1888). — Hemsley in Jour. Linn. Soc. XXVI. 
455 (pro parte) (1894). — E. Pritzel in Bot. Jahrb. XXIX. 297 
(exclud. var. plur.) (1900). — Collett, Fl. Siml. 457 (1902). — Ko- 
marov in Act. Hort. Petrop. XXII. 91 (pro parte minima) (1903). — 
Schneider, Ill. Handb. Laubholzk. I. 236, fig. 151 b-e, 152, 153 h-p 
(1904). — Nakai in Jour. Coll. Sci. Tokyo, XXXI. 193 (Fl. Kor. IL.) 
(pro parte) (1911). — Ascherson & Graebner, Syn. Mitteleur. Fl. 
IV. 578 (1911). — Henry in Elwes & Henry, Trees Great Brit. & Irel. 
VI. 1609 (exclud. var. 1-2) (1912). 
Morus indica? Linnaeus, Spec. ed. 2, 1398 (pro parte) (1763). — Burman in 
Rumphius, Herb. Amboin. Auctuar. 8, t. 5 (1755). — Poiret, Enc. Méth. 
1 M. indica Linnaeus, Spec. 986 (1753) is founded on “ Fl. zeyl. 337 ” and on 
* Tinda-parua Rheed. mal. I. p. 87, t. 49” (recte 48). Linnaeus (Fl. Zeyl. 160, 
No. 337 [1747]) in the first place cites “ Betulae species, conis oblongis villosis, 
foliis oblongis serratis. Herm. zeyl. 33. Burm. zeyl. 47." I have not seen Her- 
mann's book. Burman (Thes. Zeyl. 47 [1737] only quotes the same phrase 
from Hermann (Mus. Zeyl. 33 [1717]) that Linnaeus does. In the second place 
Linnaeus quotes * Arbor malabarica baccifera cortice albicante, glomerato flore. 
Comm. mal. 29." Commelin (Fl. Malab. 29 [1700]) quotes the same phrase and 
adds “Tinda Parua Mal.,” which tree is quoted also by Linnaeus in Flora Zeylanica. 
The ** Tinda Parua" is no Morus, but the same as Streblus asper Loureiro (Fl. 
Cochin. II. 615 [1790]). I do not know what this “ Betulae species ? of Hermann 
really is, but there is no indication of a Morus in any Flora of Ceylon. 
In the second edition of the Species plantarum Linnaeus added as a synonym 
* Rumph. Amb. VII. t. 5," which apparently is nothing else than M. alba and 
not the same as M. indica Roxburgh (see under M.acidosa). Seringe (Descr. Cult. 
Muriers, 229 [1855]) also believes that Rumphius's plate represents M. alba, and 
he reproduces parts of Rumphius's and Rheede's drawings in his Atlas, t. 21, but 
he regards the “ Tinda-Parua"' as a good species of Morus under the name M. 
indica. 
