8 ART. I.—B. HAYATA : 
to the similarity of the figures of Moseleya pinnata Henst. 
in Hooxsr’s Ic. Pl. XXVI. t. 2592, (1892), and his drawings of 
Ellisiophyllum reptans Maxim. which he had just made. The same 
plant is an extremely troublesome one, as to its genus and 
species as well as its family. Previous to the establishment of 
Ellisiophyllum by Maxtmowrcz, the same plant was fouud in Nepal 
and is described as Mazus pinnatus Watu. The plant was after- 
wards referred to Ourisia (1835), then to Hornemannia (1846), 
then to Sibthorpia (1876) and finally to Moseleya (1893). The 
last genus was established by W. B. Hemstey, as there was, as 
he thought, being quite unaware of Eillisiophyllum of Maxtmowicz, 
no proper genus for the plant. As is clearly seen in the com- 
parison of the drawings of Moseleya and  Lllisiophyllum, 
above mentioned, they are two different genera established 
for one and the same plant. Accordingly, it is clear that the 
former should be reduced to a synonym of the latter. The 
present plant should, therefore, be referred to Lllisiophyllum 
with the specific name of pinnatwm, as is stated by Mr. T. 
Makino.” Now I may return to the question as to what family 
the plant should properly be referred? In my paper “ Flora 
Montana Formos,’ I mentioned the plant under Hydrophylla- 
cee. In 1909, Herr Professor A. Branp wrote me that he had 
some doubt about this plant’s belonging to Hydrophyllacesz 
and expressed his desire to study it, asking me to send him the 
materials. This being done, he soon published his paper on 
Ellisiophyllum? in which he expressed the opinion that BarLion’s 
statement, to which I have referred above, was correct. Accord- 
ing to his opinion, all the Hydrophyllaceous plants have, without 
1) Maxryo, T. in Tokyo Bot. Mag. XX. p. 92. t. V. 
2) Branp, A.—Ellisiophyllum, in “ Zwei Kritischen Pflanzen Gattungen,” p. 5. 
