NOTES ON MIMOSEJE. 87 



M. eriophylla, sp. n. ; ramulis longe et dense lanatis, 

 stipulis lato-lanceolatis, petiolo brevissirao, foliolis 10-15- 

 jugis late falcato-oblongis acutiusculis utrinque adpresse 

 villosis pilis subtus longis sublanatis, capitulis globosis villo- 

 sissimis, bracteolis corollam eequantibus, calyce minuto v. 

 obsoleto. — Affinis M. pogocephalee sed Iana densior, foliola 

 majora (8-10 lin. longa, 3-4 lin. lata) crassiora, densius vil- 

 losa, forma ilia M. dolentis affiniumque referentia, sed non 

 marginata et indumentum (etsi densius) Eriocaulium. Capi- 

 tula racemosa; pedunculi breves, uti rhachis crassi, dense 

 lanati. Bracteolee longe ciliatee. — Province of St. Paul, 

 Riedel, 



M. Schomburgkii, p. 390. — British Guiana, Schomburgk 3 

 2nd. ColLn. 313 (497). 



After M. interrupia, add the eight following species : 



M. hebecarpa, sp. n. \ inermis ?, ramulis petiolisque ferru- 

 gineo-pubescentibus, stipulis subulatis, pinnis 20-25-jugis, 

 foliolis multijugis oblique oblongis parvis crassiusculis de- 

 mum glabratis, spicis longis densis, rachide villosa, floribus 

 tetrameris ovariisque hispidis, legumine lineari piano undique 

 villoso inermi v. ad margines rarissime aculeolato. — Arbor 

 biorgyalis et altior. Rami tortuosi, pube densa demum derasa. 

 Folia in specimine juvenilia 3-pollicaria. Foliola adulta 

 perpauca vidi, vix lineam longa. Spicse crassse 2-4-polli- 

 cares. Legumina formae M. acutistipula, sed undique mol- 

 liter villosa.— On the Rio Pardo, Brasil, Riedel. 



M. ? millefoliata, (Scheele, Linnsea 17, p. 337), ramis angu- 

 iatis, pubescentibus aculeis sparsis compressis recurvatis, pe- 

 tiolis tomentosis aculeatis, glandula subulata ad basin petiolis, 

 pinnis 12-15-jugis, foliolis 20-30-jugis imbricatis linearibus 

 cihatis, pedunculis tomentosis aculeatis, spicis cylindriceis 

 elongatis folium eequantibus. — Minas Geraes, Hartieben. 

 Unknown to me, the flowers are not described, the pod 

 unknown, and no reference made to whose limitation of the 

 genus the writer had in view, whilst the subulate gland is 

 probably some mistake. It is a great misfortune that inex- 

 perienced botanists, deprived of the assistance of a good 



