\ 
in 1870 unfortunately did not survive the journey. 
Later in the same year Kew received from Sir John a 
supply of seeds and some of these germinated, one of 
the plants of this introduction being in the Kew collection 
in 1881, growing alongside a fine male stem which was 
successfully transported to this country in 1878. In 
1884 Sir John Kirk was again able to transmit a male 
and also a female stem, both of which have thriven well 
under the conditions suitable for other tropical Cycads 
in the Palm House at Kew, where they are still in 
vigorous health and growth. From these have been 
obtained the material from which the two plates here 
given have been prepared. 
In the meantime, however, the distinguished traveller 
Mr. J. M. Hildebrandt had also met with the species on the 
East African Coast over against the island of Zanzibar, 
and at other points on the same coast as far north as 
Mombasa. From the material obtained by him it was 
described, as Encephalartos Hildebrandtii, by Professor 
Braun and Mr. Bouché in 1874, and between 1874 and 
- 1876 Hildebrandt secured and transmitted to various 
European gardens a large number of stems. Relying on 
the appearance of some of these, the late Professor Regel 
in 1876 suggested that the East African plant might 
prove to be no more than a local form of the Natal 
species, L. villosus, Lem., of which an account has been 
given at t. 6654 of this work. The controversy thus 
raised was taken up by Braun who pointed out the 
differences between the two species, and in 1880 Pro- 
fessor Kichler confirmed Braun’s observations and even 
suggested that the difference in the shape of the female 
cone-scales justified the location of the two in distinct 
sections. In 1890 Professor Hennings, however, on the 
strength of a female specimen grown in a nursery at 
Schomberg, near Berlin, which showed characters that 
led him to consider it a connecting link between the 
Natal and the East African plant, reverted to the view 
expressed by Regel. The matter has again been very 
fully discussed by Dr. Stapf in the Kew Bulletin for 
1914, and the conclusion to which he has come, that the 
view of Braun and Kichler is sound, while that of Regel 
and Hennings cannot be sustained, seems incontrovertible. 
