51 
nate that such a well-known name has to go, but it cannot be 
helped. 
Leguminosae-Mimosoideae.— Mimosa. The discussion of the 
Indian species of Mimosa, and especially of those which have been - 
considered to belong to MZ. rubicaulis, is the subject of a separate 
paper in the Bulletin. Iam convinced that VW. rubicaulis, Lamk., 
is a south Indian species only, and have described the Himalayan 
species as Mimosa himalayana. I have also described as a new 
species, M/. Barberi, chietly from Dr. Barber’s specimens from 
Godavari. I first called it MM. angustisiliqua, and as such it 
appears at p. 421 in two places. I then found that the name was 
inadmissible, so that it should be corrected to M. Barberi. The 
separate paper referred to contains the explanations regarding the 
phoreae is rather confusing, and has been much discussed, most 
lately by Merrill in his Interpretation of Rumphius’ Herbarium 
Amboinense, published in 1917. He follows Trimen (Journ. 
Linn. Soc. xxiv, 142), in establishing the fact that Linnaeus’ 
Rhizophora conjugata, represented in Hermann’s Herbarium by 
a figure only, is really Bruguiera gymnorhiza, This 
necessitates altering the name Rhizophora conjugata, given by 
Henslow in the ‘ Flora of British India’ to the second species of 
that genus, which now becomes R. Candelaria, 
It may be useful to record the identifications of ie Mangroves 
figured in Rheede’s ‘ Hortus Malabaricus,’ figs. 31-37. 
Fig. 31-82. ‘ Kandel’ — Bruguiera  conju- 
gata, Merr. 
33. * Pend Kandel ’—Bruguiera cylin- 
: vice .& A. ubasebhoractend: 
ge OE. “Pee Kandel —Rhizophora Cande- | 
laria, DC 
nt COE Tsjeru _ Kandel ’ — Kandelia } 
As 
36. ‘ Pou Kandel "__AE giceras pares 
Gae . Myrsinaceae. 
po at.) Rada Kandel 1. Lawsnebieba race- 
mosa, Willd. ... Combretaceae. 
CompreraceaE.—While travelling on Forest duty in various 
parts of South India I could not help being struck by the in- 
a of the arguments by which the well-marked species of 
minalia, T. crenulata, T. tomentosa, and T. coriacea, admitted 
fr Wight and Arnott, were joined together into one species, 7. 
tomentosa, in the ‘F lora of British India.’ I have, therefore, 
gone back to the arrangement of Wight and Arnott. 7. glabra, 
W. &A., is not, I amt the same as 7. Arjuna, but a separate 
North Indian species. Also, a mong the specimens which I had 
available for study, T found some which had the velvety fruits of 
T. Bellerica, though usually larger, but were different in leaf and 
inflorescence. On carefully comparing the description in 
Hooker’s Journal of Botany, iii. 27, I came to the conclusion that 
A2 
