50 
Smithia. An omission under S. geminiflora, Roth, requires 
correction. Before ‘‘ W. & A. 220,’’ should be inserted “ S. sen- 
- sitiva, Ait.”’ 
Desmodium. True D. Cephalotes, Wall., occurs in the hills 
of the Northern Circars, specimens of it, collected in the hills of 
Ganjam, having recently been received at Kew. When I pre- 
pared the account for the Flora, I possessed leaf specimens from 
the hills of Vizagapatam which I believed to belong to it. They 
were, however, unfortunately without fruit, so that I could not be 
sufficiently sure about it. It must now be added to the Flora. 
Erythrina. I have described in Kew Bulletin, 1919, p. 222, 
as a new species, #. mysorensis, from a specimen collected by 
Mr. Meebold at Chickenhalli, in Mysore. There is, however, 
[ think it right to explain as I did in the Kew Bulletin referred 
to, a possible doubt as to its being really an indigenous Indian 
plant. It may have been collected in a garden, but I have gone 
carefully over all the specimens preserved at Kew and have not 
found any that agree with it, so that I think it was best to 
describe it as if it were certainly indigenous. 
Pongamia. I received Dr. Merrill’s “ Interpretation of 
| Herbarium Amboinense ”’ too late for considering the 
question of adopting the name P. pinnata instead of P. glabra 
for the well-known Indian tree. Dr. Merrill considers that it is 
the Cytisus pinnatus, Linn., and that consequently the specific 
name pinnata has priority. 
Derris. D. eualata was described in Beddome’s Icones +. 186. 
but in my opinion, the description in the ‘‘ Flora of British India’’ 
does not fit it at all well, while that of D. platyptera, Baker, agrees 
much better. The specimens written up at Kew as D. eualata 
are really D. brevipes, and those named D. platyptera correspond 
to Beddome’s figure and description of D. eualata. It is strange 
that the important character of the diadelphous stamens shown 
s ee s figure is not mentioned in the ‘“ Flora of Britisn 
ae 
Leguminosae-C Ipinioideae.—Caesalpinia. The reasons 
for abandoning the specific names, Bonducella and Bonduc, are 
ne Dr. Merrill in Philipp. Journ. Sc. Botany, v. 53, and 
nterp. Rumphius’ Herb. Amboinense, 260. It seems to me that 
his arguments are sound, and I have consequently described the 
first two species as C. crista, Linn., and C. Ja bo, Maza. I 
think it is anadvantage to get rid of the confusing names Bondu- 
cella and Bonduc. 
Delomx. As Dr. Merrill has pointed out, the generic name 
Poinciana was established by Linnaeus for the plant now known 
as Caesalpinia pulcherrima, consequently Poinciana, Linn.. 
cannot be maintained for P. regia and P. elata. It is unfortu- 
