98 DR. O. STAPF ON THE FLORA OF MOUNT KINABALU. 
species which are common to, or mutually represented in, both areas is very considerable, 
as can be seen from the tables. But nearly all belong either to the class of general 
Indo-Malayan or Malayan elements, in the latter case representing outliers of the 
Malayan flora in the Himalayan region. ‘There is one species in the Kinabalu 
collection which is identical with a species from the Himalayan region, namely, Sabia 
parviflora, and 2 or 3 are representatives of Himalayan species, although they have, so 
far as we know at present, no very close congeners in the interveniag countries. Yet 
this discontinuation of the areas ceases at once so soon as we take the affinities in a 
somewhat wider sense. In fact, there is not a single species in the flora of the primary 
forest and bush of Kinabalu which could be traced back immediately to the Himalayan 
region as the cradle of the type with anything approaching certainty. 
1. Elements common to Kinabalu and the Ceylon Region only.—Microtropis ramiflora 
has been hitherto known to inhabit Ceylon and the Western Ghats only. The Kinabalu 
plant enumerated under this name agrees so exactly with certain states or forms of the 
Ceylon specimens that I am not able to distinguish it. In 6 other cases (Hugenia 
kinabaluensis, E. ampullacea, Lasianthus membranaceus, L. euneurus, L. rotundatus, 
and Glochidion tenuistylum) the affinity with species from the Ceylon region is 
strikingly marked in the vegetative character as well as in the floral structure. True, 
there are numerous species of Eugenia and Lasianthus, several of Glochidion 
§ Hemiglochidion, and a few even of Microtropis, in Malaya, which are allied in a way to 
the Kinabalu species, but I do not know a single instance of a somewhat closer affinity. 
These 7 species stand pretty isolated amongst their congeners in Malaya. The only 
suggestion concerning them which appears to me rational is to consider these species as 
belonging to very old types, and as relics of a flora which was in a more intimate 
connection with the flora of the Ceylon region. 
(ii.) Broader Affinities. 
It will have been noticed that I used the term “element” in a very narrow sense in 
dealing with what I called General Indo-Malayan elements, Malayan elements, &c. 
The results derived from the comparison of the primary forest flora of Kinabalu with 
the conterminous floras on this base were very striking in several ways, particularly with 
regard to the almost entire absence of Austro-Malayan elements in the Kinabalu flora. 
I have mentioned, however, already that this result would be very different if we based 
the comparison on groups of a higher order—I will call them briefly £ypes— such as 
genera, if they are very homogeneous, or subgenera and sections, if they are not. I 
have tried to ascertain these broader affinities and place the result before the reader 
in the following lines. These types are, of course, spread over wider areas, and 
. their geographical classification will therefore be accordingly more general We may 
| divide them into the following classes :— 
a. Amphitropical Types (types common to the Tropics of the Old and New World).— 
These amount to about 14 per cent. They are, with very few exceptions, of little interest, 
as most of them are genera, or sections of genera, consisting of species the natural 
affinities of which are still very obscure. They do not throw, therefore, any particular 
