and as concave in contrast to the flat petals of P. japonica, 
whereas in the plant here figured they are nearly as bright 
red as in P. japonica, and the petals of the latter are often 
as concave. The foliage appears to be the same in both, ~ 
but P. Maulei flowers later; early in April at Kew. I fail 
to find the prominent membranous ring described as dividing 
_ externally the base of the flower-tube from the ovary in 
living specimens of P. Maulei, though it is usually but not 
constantly present in dried ones; I, however, find traces of 
it also in dried specimens of P. japonica. Taking therefore 
into account such diversity in form and colour of fruit in 
the Pomacee as any collection of apples and pears shows, 
and the known variability of Pyrus japonica, 1 cannot but 
think it more probable than not that P. Maulei is a culti- 
vated variety of that plant. 
Whether species or variety, P. Maulei is a very well- 
marked form, and nothing of the kind can exceed the 
beauty of its golden fruit, which -in appearance are to 
common quinces what the golden pippins are to other 
apples, though differing from these latter in the skin being 
slightly viscid and not shining. Dr. Masters says that 
they are described as richly perfumed and very agreeable ~ 
to the palate; the perfume is certainly grateful though 
faint, and my experience of the taste agrees with that 
author’s, for they are excessively acid; they may, however, 
make a good conserve.—J. D. H. 
Fig. 1, Flower with long 2-branched style cut vertically ; 2, similar section of 
calyx and ovary of flower with short 5-branched style; 3, stamen; 4, style-arm and 
stigma; 5, transverse, and 6, vertical section of fruit all but 5 and 6 enlarged. 
