Veitch has figured a specimen, growing at Coombe Wood, 
which is 17 ft. high by 12 ft. through. Asarule it forms 
a bushy tree branching from the base ; according to Veitch 
it flowers very freely in alternate seasons. In the wild 
state C. macrophylla has an unusually wide range from the | 
North-West Himalaya eastward to China and Japan, and 
varies very little except in the size and shape of its leaves 
throughout this area. Though introduced into English 
collections as long ago as 1827, it is by no means frequently 
met with, and while in this country—owing to the fact, per- 
haps, that authentic specimens of Wallich’s C. macrophylla 
have been readily available for examination, and that these 
all undoubtedly belong to the species now figured—there has 
been no confusion with regard to the name it should bear, 
_ Matters have been otherwise in continental and American 
collections. Mr. Hemsley, who has carefully disentangled 
the confusion that has found its way into dendrological 
literature, points out that the cause of this confusion is due 
to the existence in collections of two species of Cornus, one 
with alternate and one with opposite leaves. That with 
opposite leaves, as a reference to the original specimens at 
once shows, is Wallich’s C. macrophylla. This opposite- 
leaved species was, however, a quarter of a century after 
the publication of the original description, again described 
by Meyer as C. brachypoda. On the Continent and in 
America Meyer’s name has been adopted for the opposite- 
leaved species, and Wallich’s name has been erroneously _ 
applied to that which has the leaves and branches alternate. 
In British collections the identity of the opposite-leaved 
species has never been in doubt, but by a converse error 
the name C. brachypoda has been applied to that with 
alternate leaves and branches. Koehne and Rehder indeed 
would treat the Japanese form of the species now figured, 
on which C. brachypoda, C. A. Mey., is based, as distinct 
from the Himalayan form, but owing to the erroneous 
impression that the plant which Wallich described has 
alternate leaves, they employ for what is undoubtedly 
C. macrophylla, Wall., a new name, C. corynostylis, Koehne. 
As a matter of fact, it is the species with alternate leaves 
and branches, grown in English collections under the 
erroneous name C. brachypoda and in the collections of 
other countries under the equally erroneous name C. macro- 
