ON A NEW CHINESE CARYOTA. 175 



evidently the most careful student of the genus, which he examined 

 in Pax^ua, Borneo and Ceylon, has some excellent observations, "^^ 

 which are to be commended to the careful study of Phoenicologists. 

 He admits C. urens, Linn., C. Rumphiana, Mart, (to which he 

 reduces C. maxima, BL, C. furfuracea /3. caudata, BL, C. ohtusa, 

 Griff., C. No, Becc, and C. Alherti, F. de Muell.), C. soholifera, 

 Wall., C. (xrijfithii, Becc. (= C. soholifera, Griff., C. furfuracea 

 a. plicata, BL), and I suppose also C. jjropinqua, Bl. I leave 

 unnoticed two or three Luzonian species, either wrongly referred 

 to the genus or insufficiently characterised, and also Loureiro's 

 C. mitis, which is far too imperfectly described to be recognisable. 

 The Chinese tree I had always supposed to be referable to C. urens, 

 Linn., and it was only on its flow^ering at Canton that I became 

 convinced it was a very well-marked species. It is not uncommon 

 on hill-sides m Kwangtung, especially in the westerly districts, and 

 Kwangsi, but I am not aware that it furnishes either toddy or 

 sago, though I am assured the fibrous leaf- sheaths supply all the 

 coir so extensively used in this part of China for covering trunks, 

 making brooms, mats and sandals, and for other purposes.! 

 Desiring to satisfy myself as to its distinctness, I appealed for aid 

 to Dr. ft. Scheffer, who, with the promptitude and great kindness 

 he has ever shown in assisting me in botanical difficulties, sent me 

 a full set of herbarium specimens of all the Caryotce under culti- 

 vation at Buitenzorg. Though these are not in all cases named, 

 I have been enabled to identify C. furfuracea a. plicata, C. urens 

 and C. Rumphiana, whilst two others seem distinct. The ability 

 and care displayed by Dr. Schetfer in his revision of the Archi- 

 pelagic Arecineml must make all botanists feel anxious that he 

 should study in detail the remaining tribes of Palms in the vast 

 establishment which has the advantage of his supervision. It is 

 at once evident, on a comparison with the various forms I have 

 examined, that the Chinese Palm is perfectly distinct. So far as 

 can be judged from Blume's and Griffith's plates of C. propinqua 

 and C. Rumphiana {obtusa), and the little woodcut of C. urens in 

 Moore's " Treasury of Botany," it differs widely in aspect from all 

 three, by its much more ample coma of fronds, and their very 

 dense pendulous primary segments, forming in the aggregate 

 thick drooping plumes. The sharp cutting of the leaflets is more 

 like that of C. urens than the others, but they are more deeply 

 and distinctly lobed. The fruit is as large as that of C. Rumphiana 

 [maxima) ; the divisions of the corolla in the male flowers very 

 much larger and wider than in any of the other species at my 

 disposal ; and, finally, whereas C. urens has from 18 to 38 stamens, 

 ('.furfuracea about 15 to 25, ('.soholifera 12 to 18, ('.propinqua 

 about 24 to 27, and the various forms referred to C. Rumphiana by 

 Beccari from 10 to 50, the Chinese Palm has from 110 to 155, 



* Malesia, i., 69, sqq. 



+ See a very interestiog notice by Mr. Sampson, iu " Notes and Queries on 

 China and Japan," iii., 129. 



I Natuurk. Tijdsclir. v. Ned. Indiii, torn, xxxii. : Ann. du jard. bot. de 

 Bnitenz., i., lOy, sqq. 



