70 THE BOTANICAL MAGAZINE. [Voi. xxx. No.m 



Engler,'^ Gamble"^ and Merrill^' regard our Viscvm japo- 

 nicum to be a species belonging to Korthalsella of Van 

 TiEGHEiM. Rut, according to the generic characters of the latter, 

 as delimited by Engler/^ the stamens are connate to (i. e. 

 opposite) the perianth-lobes. Pseudixus, on the contrar}', has 

 the stamens alternate to the perianth-lobes. As the relative 

 position of stamens is generally considered an important basis 

 and almost universally depended on in systematizing flowering 

 plants, Pseudixus should never be- regarded as congeneric with 

 Korthalsella, nor should the former be referred to the same 

 tribe as the latter. 



As to Bifaria, it is rather difficult to determine what 

 staminal arrangement it may have, as Van Tieghem fails to 

 give even a short diagnosis of his genus and adds no figures. 

 But, judging from the detailed accounts given by the author of 

 the tribus, Bifariae, which comprises two genera, Bifaria and 

 Korthalsella, Bifaria seems to have male flowers with stamens 

 opposite to the perianth-lobes, as is the case with Korthalsella. 

 In establishing Bifaria, the author distinguishes at least as man}^ 

 as 56 species, including Viscum japonicum Thunb. Although 

 Van Tieghem gives no remarks as to the species on which he 

 established his genus, yet it can be easily conjectured that the 

 genus was founded on a species other than Viscum japonicum 

 Tiiunb. Yet, at the same time, it can be inferred that Van 

 Tieghem overlooked the above mentioned unique character 

 present in all species of Bifaria and consequentlj^ placed the 

 genus in the same tribus as Korthalsella. All these ambiguities 

 would never have arisen, had the author but furnished a full 

 description of his new genus or figures illustrating it. Anyhow, 



1) Englkr— Nat. Pflanzenlain. Naclitr. i>. 138 (1897). 



2) G.\MBLE— Journ. Asiut. Sue. Ben^'al LXXV. p. 384 (_1914). 



3) >[erill, K. D.—Korlltd-'dln, JJifaria and Psendlxm, in Bot. Mag. Tokyo XXX. 

 pp. 07-09. 



4) " I'l. I geselikchtlicb, monocisch. Blhb. 3. Stf. in den q^ B1. niit den freien 

 BUib. vrreint, dalicr die A. sitzond ; A. niit 2 dnrcli Liiniisspalten sicli iiirnendon 

 FiicJicm. BUib. dtT -^ lil. init dcin Frkn. voreiiit, ihre lOiidabschnilte bei dor Keife 

 bleibend. N. dick kcgelformig. Frkn. mit kcgoilV)rmigt?m IMucontcniidcker, an welcbein 

 die Embryo-siicke U-formg in die Waiidiing des Frkn. iiineinwacbhen." — Enulek, Nat. 

 Pflanzenfam. Naditr. p. 138 (1897). 



