364 E4ST-ASIATIC COETLACE^. 



■with Q. lineata, Bl., and Q. oxyodon, Miq. ; but, as suspected by 

 Loudon and Alph. De CandoUe, Smith's Q. anulata is certainly iden- 

 tical, and M. Maximowicz has indicated this on his tickets. Following 

 in this instance a true instinct, the late Prof. Miquel* transferred this 

 from the Cyclohalajii to the Lepidohalani, and almost immediately after- 

 wards the lamented Oerstedf showed that it and its allies agree with 

 the latter group in their fruit, styles, and male inflorescence, whilst 

 they differ in the position of the abortive ovules, and in the cupule, 

 which is entirely Cyclobalanoid. He hence marshalled them into a- 

 very natural group, under the name of Cijclohalanopsis. 



6. Quercus bamhicsifolia, Hance, under which name it is figured in 

 the ** Botany of the Voyage of the Herald," is, I suspect, after all 

 that which the tree recorded in the "Flora Hongkongensis " as Q. 

 salicina, Bl. will have to retain. Blume himself;]: was very doubtful 

 ■whether his plant should not be regarded as a variety of the preceding ; 

 and M. Maximo wicz, whose three or four years' sojourn in Japan 

 almost exclusively occupied in the study of the flora gives his decision 

 unusual value, was distinctly of this opinion, as he wrote me more 

 than three years since, transmitting at the same time specimens of a 

 Bmall-fi-uited, narrow-leaived form of Q. glauca. The two are doubtless 

 close allies, but Q. hamhisifolia as a wild plant is quite constant to its 

 characters ; its leaves are narrower than any known form of Q. glauca^ 

 I believe ; the costa prominent above, not impressed ; the primary 

 veins not distinctly costiform or stouter than the others ; and the ripe 

 acorns covered with fine silky down, whilst in the other they are per- 

 fectly smooth. Curiously enough, whilst adopting Blume's name, Mr. 

 Bentham says the Hongkong tree has not been seen from elsewhere, 

 although Blume's specimens came from Japan. 



7. Qicerciis umlonata^ Hance. — Mr. Kurz writes me that he 

 believes the velvety fruit recently described by me§ under this name 

 is the same as Q. placentaria^ and a rough pencil-sketch he kindly 

 sent agrees apparently very well, though it is insufficient for actual 

 identification. But, supposing him to be right, the name is evidently 

 inadmissible, for the following reasons. It was originally given by 

 Blume|| to a Java tree with large smooth acorns, which has been re- 

 duced by Miquel^ and also by Oudemans** (selecting the name of Q. 

 gracilis) to Q. spicaia, Sm., whilst, however, A. De CandoUe and 

 Oersted retain it as distinct.ff This is unquestionably without any 

 direct affinity with my species. But it seems that Wallich subse- 

 quently gave the same name, in manuscript only, to a Penang Oak, and 

 this is doubtless what Mr. Kurz refers to. Unfortunately, however, 

 according to A. De CandoUe, he distributed under it two quite different 

 plants, with one fruit agreeing with Blume's plate, the other alto- 

 gether unlike. As he remarks, there was a ** confusio manifesta in 

 distributione " ; besides -which the unedited name is posterior in date 



* Ejusd. op., ii., 212. 



+ Rech. 8. 1. class, d. Chenes, 69 ; Apercju s. 1. class, d. Chenes, 19. 



X Mus. Bot. Lugd.-Bat., i., 305. ^ Trimen, Joum. Bot., xii., 241. 



il Fl. Jav. Cupulif., p. 19, t. 9. IT Ann. Mus. Lugd.-Bat, i., 106. 



** Annot. in Cupulif. Jav., 2. 

 ft Prodr. Syst. Nat., xvi., sec. 2, 87; Kecherches, &c., 21. 



