171 



number of petals. 



ommunic 



H 



5I1 in 1907- The two outer petals alternatiug 

 with the sepals are normal, but the two inner petals opposite 

 to the sepals are replaced, on one side by a solitary abnormal 

 stamen with a petaloid filament and broad connective, on the 

 other side by two perfeet stamens indistinguisliable from the 

 normal stamens save by their definite position with relation to 

 the petals and to the components of the outer series of filaments 

 in the androecium proper, 



39. Meconopsis robusta, Hook. f. & Thorns.: Pedde, I.e., 

 p. 268, fig. 34 D (1909) ; Mottet in Rev. Hort. 1912, p, 204. 



When using the Pfl 



note that the 



name M. rohusta was not, as the text at first sight seems to imply. 



from 



om 



him as n, 8124. One specimen of the gather- 



ing issued by WaJ . , .. ___ 



of the Hon. E.I.C. Herbarium, been made by A. P. De Candolle 

 the basis of M. naijavlensis, DC, of which, therefore, n. 8121 

 is a co-type, thongh Wallich, in issuing the remainiug specimens 

 of that gathering, did not use this or any other specific name. The 



plant issued, also without a specific name, as Wallich n. 8124, wa* 

 subsequently used by Dr. Hooker and Dr. Thomson as the basis, 

 along with another Kamaon gathering, Wallich n. 8126 E, of 

 M. rohusta, Hook. f. & Thoms. There was not an interval of 

 two years, as suggested in the Pflamenreich, between the issue of 



Wallich n. 8124 and Wallich n. 8126 E, which last in the Pflan^ 

 zenreich has inadvertently been cited as n. 8127 E. In 1855, 



M 



Hook 



not deal with Wallich n. 8121, on which M. naimulcnsis DC. 

 had been based before that distribution number had been 

 applied to this particular gathering. In 1872 these authors 

 included the Nepalese n, 8121 in their M. rohusta, but oluitted 

 n. 8126 E. The fact that the Nepalese plant collected at Gossain 

 Than in August, 1821, which was distributed in 1830 as Wallich 

 n. 8121, was that on which De Candolle had based hi^s species 

 M. napaulensis in 1824, did not become known until 1895, so that 

 Hooker and Thomson were not in a position to replace the name 



a em 



lensis which had been applied to the Nepalese plant in question in 



1824. . , , 



There is a slight discrepancy, therefore, between the statement 

 made in the text of the Pflanzenreich that M. rohusta, as defined 

 by Hooker and Thomson, must be accepted in a sense which ex- 

 cludes this Nepalese plant, and the more important statement 

 the second footnote on the same page, that Wallich 

 n. 8121, which is the ISTepalese plant in question, is identical with 

 the Kamaon plant, Wallich n. 8124, which is the type of 3/. 

 rohusta. This acceptance of the yicw taken by Hooker 



m 



Thomson in 18T2, in preference to the earlier treatment by the 

 same authors, involves two conseqnences.^ The geographical 

 area of the species should include Nepal, since Wallich n. 8121 



