4 SPICILEGIA FLOK^ SINENSIS. 



reduced by Kegel to T'. Labnisca), as the same as T^ amurmsis, 

 Rnpi-., which with Kegel he regards as a variety of T". vinifera, 

 Liiiii. ^Vhatever may be the real name of the plant I possess, I 

 consider it distinct from either of these. It is hkely that Bimge's 

 two species should be united. 



10. ViTis {Kuritis, Ampelos) Hancockh, sp. nov. — Fruticulus 4-6 

 pedalis, ramulis inflorescentiae rachi fohorumque pagina inferiore 

 prjpsertim secus nervos pilis articulatis ferrugineis dense vestitis, 

 stipulis lanceolatis glaberrimis scariosis 3 lin. longis, foliis brevis- 

 sime petiolatis oblique oblongis basi inaequali obtusis apice acutis 

 remote serratis serraturis calloso-mucronatis supra sublucidis 

 glabratis 2^ poll, longis 1^ poll, latis, paniculis oppositifolhs 

 ecirrhosis folio plerumque brevioribus, floribus viridulisfL'agrantibus, 

 calyce parvo glaberrimo, petalis glaberrimis calyptratim seceden- 

 tibus, stylo nullo. 



Ad. latera collium, in umbrosis, circa Ning-po, prov. Che-kiang, 

 raro crescentem invenit am. Hancock, sub initio m. Mail, 1877. 

 (Herb, propr. n. 21220.) 



A very distinct and well-marked sx^ecies. 



11. Aor tatariciim, Linn., var. Ginnala, Maxim. — In montosis 

 chca Chin-kiang, prov. Kiang-su, Maio 1880, coll. Bullock. When 

 my excellent and learned friend the author of the ' Flora 

 Amurensis' reduced his provisional species (Bull. Acad. Petersb. 

 XV. 407; to the central and south Kussian one (Prim. fl. Amur. 67), 

 he believed that it had a well-marked distinction as a variety, by 

 the leaves having well developed lateral lobes, and his own Man- 

 churian specimens certainly showed this, as does a Jehol one 

 which the Abbe David gave me. But some aliDine Japanese speci- 

 mens of Tschonoski's, communicated by the Petersburg Academy, 

 do not present this peculiarity, and those I am now recording have 

 a singularly varied foliage, in regard to form, even on the same 

 branch. The variety appears to me an ill-defined one, though it 

 seems constantly to have smaller h'uit. 



12. FAiHvdphis staphijleoides, Sieb. & Zucc. — In monte Koh-loh- 

 shan, ab a3stivo occasu oppidi Chung-king, p)rov. Sz-chu'an, alt. 

 2000 ped, substrato arenoso rubro, d. 8 Julii 1880, coll. W. Mesny. 

 Ah-eady recorded by me as gathered by Mr. Forbes in the Shang-hai 

 district ; the present locality is 1000 miles farther westward. 



13. Ihi'Diiopm lanceulata, K. Br. — Inter Tai-ning et Li-chia- 

 chuang, ad lines prov. Shan-si, d. 18 Junh 1872, coll. rev. J. 

 Pierson. 



14. TluT)iiopsis chinnifiu, 'Benth. — In collinis juxta Chin-kiang, 

 prov. Kiang-su, Maio 1880, leg. Bullock. Upper stipules acutish, 

 and mucli narrower than the lower obtuse ones. Kaceme eight 

 inches long, with alternate flowers. This is very close to T. 

 fahacea, DC, and my specimen has the flowers quite as large. 



15. Crotalarui ferru/fima, Grali. — In prov. Hu-peh, juxta urbem 

 I-chang, m. Junio 1880, legit T. Watters. Now first found on the 

 Chniesc continent, l)ut had already been gathered in Formosa. 

 The indumentum quite yellow, not ferruginous, as in the Ceylon 

 plant. 



