314 WILSON EXPEDITION TO CHINA 
investigation to decide if the flowers of these forms afford any good characters, 
but with the material before me I am inclined to believe that the Japanese plant 
represents only a variety of D. longifolia. 
Debregeasia edulis Weddell in Arch. Mus. Paris, IX. 462 (1856); in De Can- 
dolle, Prodr. XVI. pt. 1, 23524 (1869). — Maximowicz in Bull. Acad. Sci. St. 
Pétersbourg, XXII. 256 (1876); in Mél. Biol. IX. 649 (1877). — ?Hance in Jour. 
Bot. XX. 38 (1882). — Franchet & Savatier, Enum. Pl. Jap. I. 442 (1875). — 
Wright in Jour. Linn. Soc. XXVI. 492 (pro parte) (1894). — Matsumura & 
Hayata in Jour. Coll. Sci. Tokyo, XXII. 390 (Enum. Pl. Formos.) (1906). — 
Matsumura, Ind. Pl. Jap. II. pt. 2, 43 (1912). — Rehder in Bailey, Stand. Cyel. 
Hort. II. 973 (1914). 
" Morocarpus edulis Siebold & Zuccarini in Abh. Akad. Münch. IV. pt. 3, 218 
(Fl. Jap. Fam. Nat. II. 94) (1846), exclud. planta c". — Blume, Mus. Bot. 
Lugd.-Bat. II. 155, t. 16° (1855). — Miquel in Ann. Mus. Lugd.-Bat. III. 
130 (1867); Prol. Fl. Jap. 294 (1867). 
Missiessya parvifolia Weddell in Ann. Sci. Nat. sér. 4, I. 195 (1854), fide 
Weddell. 
JAPAN. Hondo: prov. Musashi, Tokyo, Botanic Garden, June 18, 1871 (ex 
Herb. Univ. Tokyo). 
In the typical D. edulis the branchlets are described by Weddell as “ pube 
brevi adpressa vestitis,” as it is the case in the specimen before me. See my 
remarks above. 
