— 237 — 



stamens he found a definite number of free ones, amountiiig in Thea the 

 same as the normal number of petals, in Camellia the double of it. (There 

 is one serious objection against this diagnostic, namely, that both groups 

 are characterized by the irregularity of their number of petals, since bracts, 

 sepals and petals pass into one another very gradually. And that the number 

 of free stamens should be constant, is to be disnuted with equal certainty. 

 We find an interesting example of thèse irregularities in Blanco's species 

 Salceda montana =^ Camellia lanceolatu (Bl.) Seem.; compare chap. VI.) 

 Seemann gives the foUowing distinctions (p. 340): 



CAMELLIA. THEA 



Calyx polyphyllus, sepalis de- Calyx bracteatus. 5-sepalus, se- 



ciduis. Stamina interiora duplo pe- palis persistentibus. Stamina inte- 



talorum numéro. Styli 5 (abortu riora petalorum numéro aequnlia. 



4 V. 3) '). Flores sessiles, erecti. Styli 3. Flores pedunculati, decli- 



nati. 



Seemann was the last author arguing séparation of Camellia and Thea. 

 Bentham and Hooker, in their „Genera plantarum" 2), though admitting 

 the différences enunciated by him, do not think that thèse are of generic 

 value; they hâve one genus, Camellia, divided into two sections, £'i/a//72£'///a 

 and Thea as defined by Seemann. 



AH subséquent authors agrée in uniting Camellia and Thea. This may, 

 therefore, be considered as a settled matter. Opinions were, however, 

 divided with regard to the question which name this genus ought to bear. 

 The British botanists hâve assunied the name Cû/we/Z/a, following Griffith 

 and Bentham and Hooker; the French, the Germans and the Japanese, 

 in imitation of Bâillon 3) and of Szyszylowicz 'i), hâve adopted the name 

 Thea. Thus the „lndex Kewensis" (1893) uses the dénomination Camellia, 

 on the other hand, the „Genera Siphonogamarum" of C. G. de Dalla 

 ToRRE and H. Harms (1900-1907), choose Thea. In this way a peculiar 

 confusion has arisen, and each author, in describing new species, adopts 

 either the one name or the other without any apparent reason for his 

 choice. There exists, h )wever. an international régulation of nomenclature, 

 precisely to prevent this fatal sort of arbitrariness, and it is perfectly easy 

 to apply thèse rules to the matter in hand, and to settle it definitely. 



Of course both parties had arguments for their view. Thus, Pierre^) 

 adopts the name Thea because it was used already by Kaempfer (1712), 



') I can not conceive how Seemann arrives at this character. In the species enumerated 

 by him, not a single one shows traces of a fifth carpe!, but some hâve 3 generally, 

 others 4, but this cannot in my opinion stand for a spécifie différence. In fact, may 

 not even one individual display this variability? In the ecological division of my 

 paper 1 will deal with this phenomenon. 



2) G. Bentham, J. D. Hooker, 1862. p. 187. 



^) H. BAILLON 1873. IV p. 229. 



") I. V. SZYSZYLOWICZ 1893; p. 182. 



5) L. Pierre 1887, tab. 113-114. 



