— 265 — 



mM. in length and 40-50 niM. in breadth, whereas in var. macrophylla 

 thèse dimensions are 120-140 and 50-60 mM. respectively ; besides the 

 number of serrations is under 40 witii the latter, and generally over 40 

 with the former plant. The résultant relative denticular number is therefore 

 higher with Henry's sample, which is as a rule characteristic of Chinese 

 races'), although it probably dépends on external agencies as well, inasmuch 

 as leaf size is influenced by environment. 



At al! events it is quite well possible that the présent Nr. 10377a is 

 just the same thing as Bourne's san ch'a and the sc/iân ischâ = var. 

 macrophylla von Siebold 2). May we, perhaps, entirely identify Watt's 

 race 6 with this var. macrophylla? I do not think Fortunf's spécimens' 

 belong to this variety. On the other hand, Henry's Nr. 7822 from Hu-peh 

 and Faber's Nr. 342 from Sze-chuen (Mt. Omei), both representing the 

 same race, according to Watt, and being cultivated, is pretty well the 

 same variety (both samples exist at Kew). The celebrated I-bang (P'u-êrh) 

 tea, equally classed under race 6 by Watt, was examined by me in the 

 collections of Berlin and Kew (Henry Nr. 13183, cf. Fig. 8). In this 

 instance the leaves are much smaller, 40-75 mM. in length and 20-30 

 mM. in width, the number of serrations amounting to 25-30; this tea accord- 

 ingly resembles the typical Chinese forms a great deal more than the 

 preceding spécimens, in some leaves it has, however, a distinct apex 

 (5-8 % of the leaf length), while the under surface of the leaf, its pétiole, 

 the pecco-bud and the young shoots are rather densely piibescent; this 

 coating is sometimes also to be found at the outside of the sepals and 

 petals, which are otherwise normal. We observed this hairiness before in 

 Pierre's var. pubescens, and will once more find ii back in Watt's var. 

 lasiocalyx. As to the 1-bang tea we will afterwards see that Prain leans to 

 the opinion that it belongs to the Burmese form group; but though its leaf 

 apex supports this idea, it may as well prove the relationship with macrophylla ; 

 its leaf size may even be adduced in favour of a blending with more 

 easterly Chinese races. 



The second variety, adopted by Watt, is : 



„Var. /3 B h e a ^): 



1) Cf. KocHS 1900, p. 602. 



2) How those names ought to be accounted for, and whether they may dénote other 

 Camellias besides C. japonica, we may leave thèse que.stions unsettled, knowing 

 how unreliable vernacular names are. 



3) The subséquent forms are brought under this variety: Thea Bohea, Linn., Sp. pi. 

 1762, p. 734; also. Herb., n. 152, The, Tja; W. Ten Rhyne, Observ. de Frutice Thee, 

 1675. apud Breyn, app. 9-17; JACOBUS Breyn, Pi. Exot., 1678, pp. 111-115, t. 112; 

 Le Comte (Nouv. Mém., 1692, 1 368), Tea Cultivation of Fu Kien; Tee Sinensium. 

 BOCC, Museo PI. Rar., 1697, 130-2, t. 94 (afler Breyn); Thea, Kaempfer. Am. Exot, 

 605-31 (1712), t. 695, ff. 1-2; Thea Bohea, Hill, Exot. Bot., 1759. t. 21; Lettsom, 

 Nat. Hist. Tea Tree, 1799, p. 41; Hayne, Gewâchse, Vil t. 28; Bot. Mag., 1807, 

 XXV, t. 998; BooTH, Trans. Hort. Soc. Vond., 1830, VII, p. 559; Rein, Indust. of 

 Japan, 1889, pp. 110-30, t. 1; Bohea Tea of FORTUNE aiid others; The Hybrid Tea of 

 Indian tea-planters. 



