254 ART. 1.—B, HAYATA’? 
between the two specimens in the shape of leaves. I think, however, 
from the general appearance of the plant, that one may be the partner 
of the other, and therefore I have here described them under the 
same name. In case that they should not be of the same species, the 
present name should be used for the male plant. To prevent a confu- 
sion of nomenclature, which may have crept in from such an 
error, I have here given the descriptions of the male and female 
separately. 
Lindera communis Hemst. in Forpes et Hest. Ind. FI. Sin. I. 
p. 387. 
Has. Uraisha, leg.. N. Kontsnr, Aprili. 1908, (No. 69), 
(No. 93 2); Nanto: Suisha, leg. N. Konisur, Feb. 1907, (Fl. 3). 
Distris. China: Hupeh, Szechuen, Kwangtung. 
Ossery. Ramuli fusco-cinerascentes, longitudinaliter rugosi, 
cicatricibus basi elevatis foliorum notati, ramulis fuscentibus breve 
villosis. Folia persistentia alterna petiolata, oblonga, 8 cm. longa, 
23 mm. lata, apice acuminata, basi acuta, (acuminibus 13 mm. longis 
apice obtusis), supra glabra, subtus breve tomentosa, costis et venis 
supra leviter impressis, subtus prominente elevatis venis primariis 
utrinqgue latere 5, a costa angulo 40° egressis, prope marginem 
arcuatis, anastomosantibus, venis secundariis transverse reticulatis, 
petiolis 7 mm. longis hirsutis. Flores umbellatim 5-6 ad axillas 
foliorum dispositi, perulis caducis globocis 5 mm. longis, extus basi 
sericeo-pubescentibus. Flores perfecti non visi. Bacca globosa, 
5mm. longa apice breve apiculata, 5-6 umbellatim ad axillas 
foliorum disposita, pediccllis 1 cm. longis, pubescentibus, peri- 
anthii tubo explanato parum aucto 6-lobo insidens, lobis a basi 
deciduis. 
My plant is very like Lindera communis Hemsu. It is a little 
