CHAPTER VI. 



Four notewortly Camellia species. 



In the course of my investigations on the genus Camellia 1 came across 

 some curions facts concerning the species C. lanceolata, Sasanqua and confusa, 

 which 1 tliink are of sufficient interest to record in a separate chapter. Besides, 

 under the name of C. Henryana I hâve given the diagnosis of a new species. 



A. Camellia lanceolata (Blume) Seemann (Fig. 12). 



The first description of this plant has been given by Blume '), who 

 named it „Calpandria lanceolata'' on account of its stamens having fused 

 so as to form an urn-shaped tube {Kx?.7ryi = urn), and reckoned it among 

 the Meliaceae. His diagnosis reads as follows: 



„C<^lyx 4-sepalus, persistens; sepalis inaequalibus. Petala 4. Stamina 

 ,,25-40; .filamentis inferioribus distinctis, summis in tubum cylindraceum 

 „intus ad faucem antheriferum coalitis. Ovarium 3-vel 4-loculare, loculis 

 ,,5-sporis. Stigma semitrifidum. Capsula lignosa, subglobosa, 3-valvis, 3-locu- 

 „laris, valvis medio septiferis, loculis (nonnuUis abortivis) 1-2-nucleis. Nuclei 

 «difformes, 1-spermi. Semina exalbuminosa, exarillata Embryo inversus. 

 „Cotyledones maximae. 



„C. lanceolata. Frutex, foliis simplicibus lanceolatis serratis, floribus 

 „solitariis geminisve axillaribus lateralibusve. 



„ Habitat: in sylvis montis Salak. 



,,Floret: omni tempore." 



In 's Rijks Herbarium at Leyden there exist two spécimens that are 

 likely to be authentical; one of them, Herb. L. B. No 908.190-11, collected 

 in Java by Blume, the other one, No. 908.189-180, found in Java on the 

 Mt. Salak by an anonymus. 



KORTHALS 2) iikewise described this plant which he rightly referred to 

 the Ternstroemiaceae, group Camellieae, thereby complementing Blume in 

 several respects, and (as he did in many instances) splitting up the spe- 

 cies on account of a minute déviation in some samples; he distinguishes 

 Calpandria lanceolata Blume and C. quiscosaura Korthals, the style of 

 the former being pubescent whereas the latter has a glabrous style. That 

 this characteristic really constitutes the sole différence between both spe- 

 cies, is proved by the subséquent coupled diagnosis: 



^ . . • i lanceolata Bl. 

 Lalpanana | quiscosaura Khs. 



Arhn<:n,ln ^ 3-metrorum | . f patentes, glabri, cinerei, lineati } _ 



nrouscuia ^2-4 metrorum | ' ^^^^ \ stricti, teretes, glabri, cinerei . y 



') C. L. Blume 1825, p. 178. 



2) P. W. Korthals 1839, p. 148-149, tab. 31. 



