- 245 — 



27. (19). (Sectio Thea.) Leaves amplexicaulous Flower piirple. Ovary 

 glabrous *C. amplexicoiilis. 



Leaves not amplexicaulous. Flower wtiite. Ovary pubescent. *C. theifera. 



Leaves not amplexicaulous. Flower? Ovary pubescent. Fruit very big, 

 5 seeds in each division C. megacarpa '). 



As 1 said above, the sectio Eucamellia wants revision. Perhaps it 

 might be split into three parts, viz., from Edithae till speciosa, iniquicarpa 

 till biflora, and yunnanensis till onaphalocarpa. 1 consider C. joponica as 

 the type of the first group. C. dnipijera of the second, C. Sasanqiia o\\.\\q 

 third group. In several cases it is easy to class a plant in one of thèse 

 groups, and I hâve grouped the species in my table accordingly. They 

 do not, however, differ sufficiently so as to put them as distinct sections. 



It is, in fact, a matter worthy of careful considération, to what point 

 our current notions of systematical groups, gênera, sections, species and 

 varieties, wili hâve to be revised on the lines of genetical analysis. 1 am 

 aware that the subject hère touched upon, is beset with difficulties, and 

 that a great deal of fundamental work remains to be done by the colla- 

 boration of compétent systematists and heredity students, before anything 

 like a gênerai Une of procédure may be proposed. 1 believe that the facts 

 brought to light by récent heredity investigations, cannot constantly be 

 disregarded by systematists, and must necessarily influence our conception 

 of systematical units. On the other hand, 1 cannot agrée with those extrême 

 adhérents of geneîics, who proclaim expérimental test, viz., factorial analysis, 

 to be the only way of distinguishing species, and the value of the tradi- 

 tional (coWective) species to be restricted to those cases, where they happen 

 to agrée with that genetical test ^j. Doubtlessly such ideas will prove 

 temporary exaggerations of a triumphant young branch of science. 



Anyhow, something must be done, and 1 think that the geiuis Cû/77e///û 

 may afford some facts to test the validity of certain propositions enunciated 

 by Bateson, on the bearing of the geographical distribution of allied 

 species on the évolution problem. In his well-known Silliman-lectures 3) 

 he points out that such closely related forms, when they occur in conti- 

 guous areas and overlap in a neutral zone, do not behave like descendants 



') Only leaves and fruits are known of this plant. Perhaps it wiil appear from the 



flowers not to be a Camellia at ail. 



The same may be said on C. fiirfuracea. 1 am at a loss where to put this plant. 



Its main characteristics are : branches glabrous; leaves coriaceous, glabrous, 7 — 12 cM. 



long, 2,5 — 4 cM. wide with narrow base and acuminate top, impressed latéral 



nerves; fruits terminal, globose, covered with furfuraceous scalesand pale hairs.3-celled, 



with 3 seeds in each cell, stout imbricate pedicels of 4 mM. lenglh. 

 It would be a blessing if the Philippine botanists would put some restraint on 



their passion of species making, or at least not pubiish them until they had sufficient 



literature and complète materia! at hand. 

 -) „The collective species is a mère abstraction, convenient indeed for librarians and 



beginners, but an insidious misrepresentation of natural truth." W. Bateson 1913, 



p. 250. 

 3) W. Bateson 1913. 



