122 THE JOURNAL OF BOTANY 



Mrs. Britten from Mitten's herbarium was one, " Ceylon, Dr. 

 Thwaites, 239 in part," which is different from any of the plants so 

 far mentioned. It is dioicous, has leaves very similar to those of 

 S. monoicum, but wider, more concave, with more abruptly 

 narrowed and rather longer and finer points, the seta much longer, 

 2-5 cm., and the perichaetial bracts very distinct, the inner having 

 a shortly loriform denticulate acumen, at the base of which the 

 leaf is abruptly widened, with two or three coarse teeth at 

 each side. It agrees, in fact, exactly with the plant described 

 and figured in the Bry. Jav. as H. Gedeanuvi C. M. (ii. 208, t. 307), 

 where the characteristic perichsetial bract is shown as described 

 above. Assuming this to represent C. Miiller's species (as to 

 which the authors express a certain amount of doubt), this speci- 

 men of Thwaites's is certainly referable to S. Gedeanum. Obviously, 

 therefore. Mitten had no very clear conception of his Ster. acuti- 

 rameus, and Thwaites's C. M. 239 and 239 &, issued by Mitten 

 under that name, contain at least three distinct plants. 



I have endeavoured to find out what the co-type of Ster. 

 acutirameiLs Mitt, is, " In mont. Khasian., ad Moflong, in pinetis, 

 Griffith ! " No specimen of this is to be found in either of the 

 national collections, nor do any of Griffith's specimei:is exist in 

 Mitten's own herbarium. But under S. Gedeanum at Kew there 

 is a specimen determined by Mitten as " Acropormm Gedeanum 

 C. MiilL, Khasia, Moflong, Herb. Griffith, 245," which I take to 

 be in all probability Mitten's co-type of Ster. acutirame^is, but as 

 to which he probably revised his opinion at a later date, naming 

 it A. Gedeanum (otherwise he would without doubt have recorded 

 Griffith's 245 in the Muse. I. Or. under S. Gedeanus, but the only 

 record of that species there is " In Ceylon, Gardner ! "). I am 

 not able to say certainly to what species this belongs ; it does 

 not, however, agree with the H. Gedeanum of the Bry. Jav., 

 either in leaves or in perichgetium ; nor with S. monoicum, though 

 near it. 



I propose, therefore, to drop the name of S. acutirameum, as 

 representing a composite species. It may be argued that the type- 

 specimen being the plant described as H. monoicum in the Bry. 

 Jav., the name acutirameum should be retained for that plant. 

 The description and figures in the Bry. Jav., however, have 

 established the species quite clearly, and as it is a widely distri- 

 buted one, it would be unfortunate to disturb the nomenclature. 

 Moreover, it is quite clear that Mitten had no definite idea of the 

 species described as Ster. acutirameus — I have shown that three 

 or four different species were so named by him at one time or 

 another (and a Burmese plant, Moulmein, leg. Parish, 96, also 

 determined by Mitten as Ster. acutirameus, is probably distinct 

 from them all) — while there is almost a certainty that one of the 

 two plants actually cited by him for Ster. acutirameus (Griffith's 

 Khasian plant) was a different species from the actual type. Nor 

 have I in the above remarks in any way attempted to exhaust the 

 number of different species that have passed in one herbarium or 

 another as S. acutirameum ! I believe, therefore, that there will 



