608 BOWMAN— ECOLOGY AND 



Engler and Prantl, however, whose classification is still the au- 

 thority perhaps includes under the division of the family Rhizo- 

 phoridese-Gynotrochinje, five genera, Crossostyles, Gynotroches, 

 Rhisophora, Ceriops and Kandelia. 



But though the genera of the Rhizophoracese do not fall very 

 naturally into an arrangement, it is now fairly well decided that the 

 seven species of the Linnaean genus, Rhisophora, have been condensed 

 so that only three species are recognized, viz., R. mangle, R. con- 

 jugata and R. mucronata. Of these three species as noted before 

 only R. mangle is indigenous in the Americas, although Martins, 

 Euler and Urban,'"'*^ 1882, in the "Flora Brasiliensis " mentions 

 Meyers's species R. racemosa. This is a synonym or a subspecies 

 of R. mangle. Guppy, 1906, "recognizes R. mangle under two dis- 

 tinct types — the " Grande " and the " Chico " types. This will be 

 discussed in a subsequent paragraph. 



The main features which demarcate R. mangle from its related 

 species are the shapes of the leaves, the length of the petioles and 

 the number of flowers in the cymes ; and the texture of the petals, 

 whether they be thick lanate, or thin and glabrous. There has been 

 some slight confusion in the nomenclature of these three species, 

 although recent floras have straightened out the tangle. Timmens, 

 1894,"- in his "Flora of Ceylon," mentions the two Oriental species, 

 and gives as one — R. mucronata Lam. as synonymous with R. candel 

 Moon Cat and R. macrorhisa of Griffiths. The other of his two 

 species is R. candelaria, which is synonymous with R. conjugata of 

 Linnaeus and R. mangle Moon Cat and Linnaeus in part. 



Hooker,*'^ in " Flora of British Lidia," also gives R. mucronnta 

 as the R. mangle of Linn., but this is not correct. The R. mangle, 

 which is the equivalent of R. mucronata Lam., is L. mangle Roxb., 

 which is quite different from R. mangle of Linnaeus. This error of 

 nomenclature has been made by Roxburgh and perpetuated in the 

 older works. 



^^ Martius, Euler and Urban, " Flora Brasiliensis," Vol. XII., par. II., p. 

 425, 1882. 



^1 Guppy, ri. B., " Observations of a Naturalist in the Pacific," Vol. II., 

 1906. 



6- Timmens, H., "Flora of Ceylon," Part II., p. 151, 1894. 



63 Hooker, D. J., " Flora of British India," Vol. II., 435, 1879. 



