BY J. H. MAIDEN AND E. BBTCHE. 911 



MONIMIACE^. 



Daphnandra tenuipes, Perk., in Engler, Pflanzenreich, iv. 101, 

 p. 75 (1901). 



Tweed Ptiver District (E. Betche; March, 1894). 



This new species is chiefly distinguished from D. micrantha by 

 the broader leaves, more rounded at the base and hairy under- 

 neath, and by the looser and larger inflorescence. 



The two species differ in fact in a number of, what might be 

 termed by some, small particulars. In the aggregate there is no 

 doubt the species are distinct. 



In Miss Janet Perkins and Ernst Gilg's ' Monograph of Moni- 

 miace?e' some very important changes have been made concerning 

 New South Wales plants, which we bring here under general 

 notice. 



WiLKiEA macrophylla, A. DC, Prodr. xvi. 2, p. 669 (1868). 

 Syn. Kihara 7nacrophylla, Benth., Fl. Austr. v. 288 : Molli- 

 nedla Huegeliana, Benth., ojj. cit. v. 286 ; M. macrophylla, 

 TuL, Mueller, Second Census. 



Miss Perkins writes (Engler's Bot. Jahrbiicher, xxv. 569) : — 

 ^' I cannot understand how Bentham could have placed this 

 species under two diff'erent genera. I have seen the originals of 

 Hedycarya macrojihyUa, A. Cunn. (synonymous with Kihara 

 macrophylla, Benth.), and of Mollinedia Huegeliana, TuL, and 

 have convinced myself that they belong with certainty to one 

 and the same plant." 



The mistake which both Bentham and Mueller made with 

 regard to this plant seems to us to have been caused by the 

 difficulty often experienced in matching male and female speci- 

 mens in plants with unisexual flowers. However, in Bentham's 

 description in the ' Flora Australiensis ' the diff'erence between 

 the two plants is well defined by the number and disposition of 

 the stamens. Bentham himself writes : — " The female and fruit- 

 ing specimens (of Mollinedia Huegeliana) are, when glabrous, 

 very difficult to distinguish from those of Kihara macrophylla.^^ 



