267 
the name altogether, especially as A. Grahamianus, as accepted 
by Bunge, and by Boissier, Fl. Orient. ii. 307, is a somewhat 
different plant, which is found west of the Indus in Afghanistan 
and Chitral, and not as far as is known in Kashmir. 
Astragalus multiceps, Wall. The plant described by Bentham 
is mainly Royle’s plant from Shalkar in Hungarung, i.e., Upper 
Kunawar. Bentham subsequently discovered that Royle’ 8 and 
Wallich’s plants were different as the specimen in his herbarium 
bears “ Astragalus eee weebe Royle 1835” and later 
Bentham has written ‘‘ non As A. multiceps, Wall. Cat. 
n. 5937 is A. Candolleanus, Royle ex Benth. non Boiss., and A. 
multiceps, Royle is A. Jacquemontii, Bunge, it is clearly desirable 
to drop the name A. multiceps, Wall. : 
The species in Fischer’s Synopsis Astragalorum Traga- 
cantharum (Bull. Soc. Nat. Mosc. xxvi. II. (1853) ), from N.W. 
India are as follows :— 
A. cicerifolius, Royle ex Fisch. l.c. 404. There is no doubt 
about this plant as the type is Jacquemont’s n. 1143, which 
according to Bunge came from Kashmir. The specimen bearing 
this number in Herb. Hook. does not mention the locality. 
A. psilocentros, Fisch. l.c. 405. The type is Jacquemont’s 
n. 109. This plant did not come from Kashmir as stated by 
Bunge, |.c. 70, but from ‘‘ Djillapour ”’ a place in the Salt Range 
between Pind Dadan Khan and Jhelum. 
A. Grahamianus, Fischer excl. diagn. Royle, is A. Jacquemontit, 
unge. 
A. bicuspis, Fisch. lic. 406. The type is Jacquemont’s 
n. 1695. This plant came from Upper sco gebe between Lapan 
and Poya and not from Kashmir as stated by Bunge. 
A. psilacanthus, Fisch. l.c. 407 is, as regards Jacquemont’ 8 
nn. 1543 and 1584, A. polyacanthus, Royle. Fischer copies the 
descriptions of A. ‘polyacanthus, Royle, and A. multiceps, Wall. 
verbatim from Royle (l.c.) and does not claim to have seen 
either nor does he refer any specimens to these species. 
The species in Bunge l.c. xv. 67-71 are as follows :— 
A. zanskarensis, Benth. ex Bunge. The type is Thomson’s 
plant in Herb. Ind. Or. Hook. f. & Thomson, of which there 
is one sheet in Herb Kew and one in Herb. Calcutta. The 
Calcutta sheet is not the same as the Kew sheet and is probably 
A. Candolleanus, Royle, or an allied species, but is not in g 
condition. 
A. bicuspis, Bunge, is the same as Fischer’s plant. 
A. Grahamianus, Bunge, is, as already pointed out, an Afghan 
plant allied to A. cicerifolius, a ex Fischer, but ‘apparently 
sufficiently distinct for specific ra 
A. Jacquemontui, Bunge. The ee is Jacquemont’s n. 1640 
stated by Bunge to have come spam N. W. Himalaya and I think 
almost certainly came from Kuna : 
A. multiceps, Bunge, i is Royle’s plant and not Wallich’s. As 
already noted it is A. ee i, Bunge. 
