Actinophloeus Marcarthurii (H. Wend.) 
Beccari apud Wigman in Bull. Dépt. Agric. Indes 
Néerl. no. 81 (1909) 1, nomen — Beccari in Webbia 4 
(1913) 154 — Radermacher in Ann. Jard. Bot. Buitenz. 
85 (1925) 12. [The first complete description of the 
species |. 
Kentia Macarthuri Hort. apud Belg. Hort. 27 
(1877)241, nomen (as Mac Arthuri)— H. Wendland 
apud ‘I’. Moore in Florist & Pomol. 1879 (Aug. 
1879) 115, text cut — H. Wendland apud III. Gar- 
tenz. 28 (Dec. 1879) 265, t. 36. 
_Ptychosperma Macarthurti H. Wendland apud 
Kew Rept. 1882 (1884) 55. 
This species, nomenclaturally, has had a compli- 
eated history. Originally introduced about 1877, it 
was placed in the genus Aentia and was described 
(rather inadequately) in 1879. Later it was transferred 
to Ptychosperma. In horticulture it has been frequently 
cultivated under both names, but usually as Kentia 
Macarthuri. In 1918 Beceari removed it to Actino- 
phloeus where we believe it more correctly belongs. 
Brachychiton populneus (Schott & Endl.) 
R. Brown in Bennett Pl. Jav. Rar., pt. 3 (1844) 284. 
Sterculia diversifolia G. Don in Loudon, Hort. 
Brit. (1830) 392, nomen—G. Don, Gen. Syst. 
Gard. & Bot. 1 (1881) 516, non Brachychiton diver- 
sifolius &. Brown in Bennett Pl. Jav. Rar. pt. 3 
(1844) 234 which is Sterculia caudata Heward in 
Herb. Cunn. apud Bentham, FI. Austral. 1 (1863) 
230. 
Poecilodermis populnea Schott & Endlicher, Melet. 
Bot. (1882) 33. 
Following Engler and Prantl and recent authors it 
has seemed best to accept the genus Brachychiton Schott 
& Endl. It is not, however, possible to apply the earl- 
2 
