175 



Syst. vol i. p. 135 (1831), partim et ouoad exenipla floribus 

 rubris prolata. 



Himalaya: Central Nepal; Gossian Thau, Wallich 8121. 



ihe specimens of the gathering upon one of which M. 

 napaulensis was based have leaves which agree in shape both 

 with those of M. Tohusta, Hook. f. & Thorns., and with those 



Hook 



As regards their indumentum the speci- 

 -ire almost exactly intermediate between 

 those of M. robusta and M. WalUchii. The capsules of M. 



mens 



much 



WalUchii 



than they do to those of M. rohusta, to which latter species 

 Wallich n. 8121 has been referred both in the Flora of British 

 India and in the Pflanzenreich. There is reason to think that 

 M. Tiapaulensis may have red flowers, but owing to the fact that 

 the evidence as to this is circumstantial and inferential, it seems 

 desirable, until direct testimony as to the colour of its petals 

 becomes available, to treat Wallich n. 1821 as a tertium quid, 

 and to delay the acceptance of the consequences of the action 

 taken by Hooker and Thomson in 1872, and endorsed by Fedde 

 in 1909, in so far as regards the reduction of M. robusta to M. 



napaulensis. 



Pfl. 



not only that the plant on which the species M. navaulensis, 

 DC. was based has in that work been transferred to M. robusta, 

 Hook, f. & Thorns., but that elsewhere in the same volume 

 M. napaulensis, DC, inadvertently written nepalensis, has been 

 tentatively referred to another genus.* M, napaulensis^ Walp., 

 which is not the same as M. 7iapaulensis,"DC., has in one passage 

 in the Pflanzenreich been left as a synonym of M. panicvlata, but 

 has been cited afresh under M. n<ipaulenns. DC, on the ground, 

 explained in the second footnote on p. 269, that Walpers has not 

 given a description of the species intended by him. This is the 



M 



w 



fact that no description was required. In 1825 Mr, D, Don, 



dealing^ with specimens of a Meconopsis from Nepal, sent hj 

 Dr. Wallich to Mr. A. B. Lnmbert, under the manuscript name 

 Polychaetia panicvlata, Wall., published a description of the 

 species, which he referred to Papaver as P. 2)aniculatn7n, at the 

 same time ima^ininsr it to be the same thing as the plant 

 published by De Candolle a year earlier under the name 

 Meconopsis napaulensis. Dealing with the same problem in 1842, 

 Walpers, who held the view that Meconopsis is a valid ^enus, 

 accepted Don's description of the species as adequnte, using as 

 its name the synonvm cited by Don and relegating the name used 

 by Don to the position of a synonym. 



41. Meconopsis Wallichii, Tlook. : Journ. Hort. ser. 3, vol. 

 xxxvii. p. 73, fig. 14 (1898); Fedde, I.e., p. 2C9, fig. 35 n (1909); 

 Mottet in Rev. Hort. 1912, p. 204, fig^. 63, 64 et icon, col.; 

 Gnrd, Chron., 1912, vol. Hi. p. 138 et 1913, vol. liii., fig. 66; 

 Garden, 1915, p. 175 cum icon. 



Das PiJanzenreiclh 40 Hrft [IV. 101], p. 211. 



