136 ON SOME MOUNTAIN PLANTS FfiOM N0ETHER5 CHINA. 



Chinois distinguent cette esp^ce du Quercus obovata (Po-lo-shu*), que je 

 n'ai pas remarqud sur le Po-hua-shan." Young leafy shoots with ^ 

 inflorescence. The very young leaves are almost sessile, spathulate- 

 obovate, much narrowed in the lower half, coarsely sinuate with 

 obtuse lobes, and, with the exception of a few minute stellate hairs 

 sparsely scattered over them, they are quite smooth ; whilst those of 

 Q. dentata, Thunb. (Q. obovata, Bge.), are densely woolly. A portion 

 of cupule sent is exceedingly thick, the glabrous, elongated, linear 

 scales, though flattened, quite rigid and woody in texture. There can, 

 I think, be little doubt that this is a very distinct species, hitherto 

 undescribed, and closely allied to Q. dentata, amongst the Cerru\ 

 Q. mo)igoUca, Tisch., Q. Fabri, Hance, Q. aliena, Bl., and Q. crispula, 

 BL, belong to the Lepidobalani. I trust Dr. Bretschneider will obtain 

 fruiting specimens so as to allow of a proper diagnosis being drawn up. J 



♦ This is the name given at Chifu to Q. serraia, Thunb. iSee notes at vol. 

 xiii., p. 8, of Linnean Journal, in my "Supplementary Notes on Chinese 

 Silkworm Oaks." 



t So the word should be written. In this instance, as in that of Asplenium 

 for Asplenum, Linnseus, in defiance of all classical authority, has incorrectly 

 written Cerris. The Turkey oak is mentioned amongst ancient Latin writers 

 by V'itruvius, the elder Pliny, Columella, and Palladius, and in every case the 

 name is written Cerrus. And the earlier botanists at the close of the Mediaeval 

 Period, Dodoens, Cesalpini, &c., so wrote ;Tthough the former, or his artist, pos- 

 sibly by oversight, spells the word Cerris over his figure (Stirpium Pempt., 

 p. 831), but not in the text. As with Xanthoxylon (with the peace of Dr. Asa 

 Gray and the authors of the new "Genera"), the correct spelling should surely 

 be restored, Nothing hut a blind reverence for the letter can be urged in support 

 of an unjustifiable cacography. 



X I may take this opportunity of briefly describing and indicating the posi- 

 tion of a Quercus placed amongst the species nomine tantiim notce in M. Alph. De 

 Candolle's monograph in the Prodromus, and for a specimen of which I am 

 indebted to the kindness of Mr. Kurz. 



Quercus (^Pasania, Eupasania) Lindleyana (Wall., cat. n. 2782). — Ramulis 

 tomento brevi fulventi-cinero ohtectis, foliis coriaceis 7-9 pollicaribus incl. petiolo 

 semipollicari cuneato-obovatis acuminatis margine subrevoluto integro undulato 

 adultis supra subopacis prseter costs6 basin cinereo-tomentosam glaberrimis 

 snbtus densicule fulvido-cinero-tomentosis costa valida nervisque utrinque 12-14 

 sn^ulo circ. 45° egressis prominulis venisque tertiariis elevate -reticulatis, fructi- 

 bu8 escus spicam sessilibus plerumque 2-4 fasciculatis connatis, cupulis poculi- 

 formibus 8quamis6-7 seriatis plus minus concretis transverse oblongis apiculatis 

 AdpressisS^ Un. altis 4-6 lin-latis griseo-tomentosis intus fulvo-sericeis cicatrice 

 rugosa totum fundum occupante, glandibus pallide brunneis glaberrimis lucidis 

 ovoideo-conicis obtuse subtrigonis hilo rugoso pallido exsculpto cupulam 3-4 plo 

 excedentibus stylis in umbonem parvum hirsutum coalitis coronatis. In monti- 

 bus juxta fl. Taong dong regni Avani. 



The nearest species to this with which I am acquainted are Q. brevipetiolata, 

 Scheflf., and Q. Wallichiana, Lindh, but they are closer to one another than to 

 this oak,which amongst our Chinese species approaches^Q. t/ialassica, Hance, and 

 Q. Barlandi, Hance. I would also remark that the existence of 6-7 styles in 

 Q. (Ci/clobalanus) Reinwarddi, Korth,, and Q. {Cyclobalanopsis) velutina, Lindl., 

 in the latter species extremely well developed and quite separated, seems to me 

 a powerful argument for the generic union of Quercus, Castanea, and Castanopsis. 

 M. A. DeCandolle distinguishes Castanea absolutely by its fruit, 6-celled a6 initio. 

 1 cannot controvert this statement from actual observation and investigation ; 

 but it is not in accordance with the character given in most, if not all, European 

 and North American Floras, where the ovary cells as well as the styles are 

 explicitly stated to vary in number from 3 to 8 ; and it would be, after all, but 



