— 284 — 



„floribus inodoris, petalis (albis) obovatis obtusis, staminibus glabris. ovario 

 „stylisque connatis lanato-pubescentibus. capsula " 



„C. quinosaura; arborescens; ramulis petiolisque foliis 



„oblongo-ovatis acutis, subtus . . . , floribus inodoris, petalis (albis) . . . , 



„staminibus . . . . , ovario stylisque connatis glabris, capsula " 



(Of the latter species he never saw any spécimen, and the blanks in his 

 description indicate that he bas not seen the original diagnosis either.) 



It appears from this quotation : firstly, that Seemann. with C. lanceo- 

 lata, inserted the word , .inodoris" and with quiscosaura even changed 

 fragrant into inodorous; secondly that he in the former case does not 

 mention the nearly complète concrescence of the stamens, thus intimating 

 that they are not united, whereas he seemingly ignores the fusion in the 

 latter plant; and finally that he erroneously ascribes to quiscosaura not 

 only a glabrous style (as Korthals did) but also a smooth ovary. 



Thus we find literature hopelessly entangled in this subject, for 

 Seemann's paper may be found in a great deal more libraries than the 

 ancient works of Blume and Korthals. I shall try to prove that some 

 , .novae species" are merely products of this confusion. 



Seemann justly removed both „Calpandria's" to the genus Camellia ; 

 the staminal tube, so différent form the maie organs in tea, recurs with 

 other Camellia?, in the shape of partly concrète filaments. 



Though, truly, pubescence of the style is one of the current spécifie 

 distinctions in our genus, 1 do not attach so much importance to the fact 

 that part of the „Calpandria's" has a glabrous style, as Korthals does. 

 in my opinion there can be no objection against using the name Camellia 

 lanceolata for both glabrous and hairy forms; and even for the constitution 

 of a distinct variety, the ,, quiscosaura'' form lacks importance ')• Indeed, the 

 tea flower equally varies with respect to the coating of the ovary; still it is tea. 



Likewise 1 object against the following Cam£'///û'-species of a récent 

 date 2) : C. minahassae Koorders, Thea lasiostyla Kochs, Thea montana 

 (Blanco) Merrill, and Thea (Calpandria) connata Craib. I am fairly 

 certain that thèse four species are either identical with C. lanceolata (as 

 Thea lasiostyla) or do constitute but minor déviations from the latter 

 (namely, Thea montana, T. connata and Camellia minahassae). 



In support of this assertion 1 subjoin a synoptical table of the cha- 

 racteristics of C. lanceolata (from Blume's description, with Korthals' 

 compléments in brackets) with the iorms quiscosaura, lasiostyla, minahassae, 

 montana and connata (additions in accolades are mine, from observations 

 in sicco). This synopsis is, 1 think, a conclusive proof that ail descriptions 

 bear référence to one and the same species, and this is the conclusion 

 to be drawn also from the herbarium material on hand. 



Moreover, the former five ,, species" were ail found in the Malay Archipe- 

 lago as the sole and highly characteristic représentants of the genus Cû/n^///a. 



') Hère I am in accordance with S. H. Koorders and Th. Valeton 1896, p. 305. 

 S. H. Koorders 1898, p. 

 W. G. Craib 1914, p. 6. 



^) S. H. Koorders 1898, p. 643. —J. Kochs 1900, p. 582.— E.D. Merrill 1905, p. 44,— 



