520 | ROBINSON. 
10. Elatostema obovatum Wedd. in Ann. Sci. Nat. Bot. IV 1 (1854) 190; 
Arch. Mus. Paris 9 (1856) 326; DC. Prodr. 16' (1869) 188; Vidal, Rev. Pl. 
Vase. Fil, (1886) 256. 
Luzon, Province of Laguna, Calauan, Cuming 628. This is probably not the 
type collection. In the original description, there is no reference to locality or 
collector; in the Monograph (Archives), Cuming 52 is alone cited, but that 
number is a fern, Polypodium dolichopterum, Copel.; in the Prodromus, the cita- 
tions are “Callery, Cuming, n. 52 et 628:” Vidal separates this as Cuming 628 
and Callery 52. 1 believe that he was correct and that Callery’s collection was 
the type: this I have not seen, nor can I match Cuming’s specimen by any recent 
collections. The staminate receptacles are unknown, our specimen, like those 
studied by Weddell, having only the pistillate. 
ll. Elatostema delicatulum Wedd. in Ann. Sci. Nat. Bot. IV 1 (1854) 190. 
HR. glaucescens B. delicatula Wedd. in Arch. Mus. Paris 9 (1856) 325. 
E, obtusum B. delicatulum Wedd. in DC. Prodr. 161+ (1869) 187. 
? #. obtusum Wedd. in DC, Prodr. 1. ¢., quoad philippinense; F.-Vill. Noviss. 
App. (1880) 204. 
? Dorstenia pubescens Blanco Fl. Filip. (1887) 692, non Forst. f. Prodr. (1786) 
ll. ; 
BE, delicatum Elmer Leafl. Philip. Bot. 2 (1908) 467. 
Luzon, Province of Isabela, Bur. Sci. 8018 Ramos: Province of Rizal, Bosoboso, 
Bur. Sci, 1092 Ramos: Province of Laguna, Los Bajos, Hallier s. n., Bur. Sci. 
9897, 9898, 9921 Robinson; Mount Maquiling, Phil, Pl. 296 Merrill; Lilio, Bur. 
Sci. 60/1 Robinson, Nercros, Cuernos Mountains, Elmer 10843 (cotype of &. 
delicatum). 
This species and the next, almost certainly distinet, present problems of ex- 
ceptional difficulty. No collection is specified in the original description of JL. 
delicatulum: in the Archives, where it is made a variety of H£. glaucescens, there 
first deseribed, those cited are not discriminated between species and variety. 
In the Prodromus, #. delicatulum is transferred as a variety to the Indian J. 
obtusum, the colleetors are given as Callery and Barthe, and a collection by 
Barthe is cited under typical FZ. obtusum. For FE. glaucescens, the collections cited 
are Commerson (presumably given to Commerson by Sonnerat, who was in La- 
guna), Callery, and Cuming 629. Cuming’s number is also the type of #. 
brongniartianum Wedd., but our sheet contains two species, undoubtedly those 
intended by Weddell. Dr. Gagnepain, of the Muséum d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris, 
has compared Bur. Sci. 6011 with the type of #. delicatulum, and considers it the 
same. The conclusions reached here, after study both in herbarium and field, are 
that Barthe’s plants, not seen by me, may well have been different stages of the 
same species, that H. delicatulum is closely allied to B. glaucescens, and while very 
similar vegetatively to HE. obtusum, is quite distinct from it in the pistillate 
receptacles. On the last point, possible differentiating characters suggested by 
the descriptions are that the pistillate receptacles of H. obtusum are peduncled,™ 
that the bracts of the staminate receptacles are ovate and glabrous, and the 
leaves never over 12.56 mm in length. In FH. delicatulum, the pistillate receptacles 
are sessile, the pilose bracts of the staminate are lanceolate, the leaves while 
variable in length usually exceed the limits noted for #, obtusum. However, 
Mr. W. W. Smith, of the Royal Botanic Garden, Calcutta, to whom what is 
considered very typical material of H. delicatulum had been sent, writes that he 
can not see much difference between it and their Indian types of H. obtusum, as 
* Hook. f. Fl. Br. Ind, 5 (1888) 573. 
