GENUS MYSTROPETALON IIAKV. (RALANOPHORACE.li ) . 283 



(oblong) with a broad, very obtuse apex to lanceolate 

 and an obtuse apex, ciliated at the margin and densely 

 hairy on the lower side, especially at apex and along the 

 broad nn'drib. Perianth usually subellipsoid or oblong 

 or cylindrical. 



(These characters would make this to be M.TIioiiiii and M. 

 Sollyi. ) 



No. 205. 



Leaves. — Similar to No. 201, but mostlty glabrous on the 

 lower side. 



Male Flower (Buds). — The lowest with the anterior bract 

 spathulate and two-thirds the length of the perianth, the 

 posterior bracts nearly two-thirds the length of the ante- 

 rior. 



Female Flower (in anthesis). — Anterior bract broadly linear 

 or nearl}' oblong or subspathulate, with a broader apex. 

 Perianth shortly oblong (nearly 2 X diam.) to subglo- 

 bose or subcampanulate, the lower lobe curving out- 

 wards, rarely quite globose, and as long as wide (includ- 

 ing the lobes). The tube of the perianth as long as or 

 shorter than its width ; the lovv^er lobe longer than the 

 other two, equalling or much shorter than the tube, all 

 generally much broader at their base than long, some- 

 times obsolete. The lobes sometimes entire, but gener- 

 ally truncate and dentate or crenate ; in very short-lobed 

 forms the perianth may appear obliquely truncate and 

 multi-crenate. (This would be M. Sollyi, but the |)eri- 

 anth is sometimes distinctly tubular, the margin not 

 rarely trifid, the teeth entire. ) 



Dr. PrnxeH's other specimens gave equally variable results, 

 hence from his observations, as well as from my own, one nmst 

 draw the conclusion that there is only one species of Mystrope- 

 talon known, and that the dififerences observed do not even justify 

 the establishing of two or more varieties — one can only spealc of 

 forms. 



When I had written out these notes and began to ])repare the 

 references to literature. I noticed in the recent part of the " Flora 

 Capensis " (Vol. V., Sect. II, 215) that Eichler had treated the 

 genus in one of the later volumes of De Candolle's " Prodomus," 

 viz., vol. xvii, 125 (1873). On looking up his elaborate account 

 I fomid that he had surmised the identity of the two species, as 

 all the material at his disposal agreed more or less whh M. 

 Thomii. Eichler says : 



" The distinctions drawn between the two species with 

 regard to the bracts are hardly borne out by Harvey's own 

 figures, and the remaining differences are not quite constant, 

 hence there is probably only one species." 



