407 



supra canaliculate sufTulta. Spicae glandnloso-pilosae, laxae, 

 angustae, u.sque ad 6 cm. longae, in jpaniculas grandes terminales 

 dispositae; flores oppositi, alabastris glanduloso-pubescentibus; 

 bracteae 3 mm. longae, late truncatae, apice parum retusae; brac- 

 teolae lineares, apice rotundatae. Calyx subacqualiter 5-fidus, 

 5 mm. longus, segnientis anguste lincaribus vix Imm.latis ciliatis. 

 Corolla alba, purpureo-suffusa, 3 cm, longa, ore 1 cm. dioiuetru, 

 inferne gradatim angustata, lobis rotundatis extra supcrne sparse 

 pubescentibus intra glabris nisi lobi inferioris apicem versus. 

 Staviina 2, filamentis comj^lanatis glabris. Ovariwrn 7 mm* 

 altum, pilis albis erectis dense coronatum. Semina ultra 2 jnnu 

 longa, 1'5 mm. lata, basi excepia pilis brevibus elasticis tecta. 



Indo-Chiis^a. Burma: Ruby Mines District; Bernardmyo to 

 Mogok, 1850 m., Lace 6019. 



XLII.— MIMOSA CAESIA AND M. INTSIA. 



W. G. CRAIB. 



The somewhat divergent views adopted with regard to these two 

 Linnean species at difierent times by successive authors prompted 

 the writer to an attempt to clear up the mystery surrounding them. 



With M. caesia there seems to be practically no difficulty. 

 Linnaeus based his species on FL Zcyl. 217, and of this there exist 



M 



Wig 



In addition to the Fl. Zeyl. Linnaeus also quotes Plukenet. 

 Unfortuately there does not appear to exist a specimen of 

 Plukenet's plant, but from the figure the writer feels disposed to 

 refer it, not to the Fl. Zeylanica plant but to the plant enumerated 

 below as Acacia torta. According to Jackson there is a specimen 

 written up as caesia in the Linnean herbarium, but not in 

 Linnaeus's own handwriting. The writer proposes to limit 

 M. caesia to Hermann's plant which is unquestionably the plant 



intended by Linnaeus, 



Exactly which plant Linnaeus meant by his M. Intsia the 

 writer has found impossible to decide. The first plant quoted by 

 Linnaeus in his Sp. PL, I p. 522 is that of Hort. Cliff. 209. No 

 trace of this particular Cliffortian j^lant was found m Herb. Mus. 

 Brit., but a reference to the description reveals the fact that at 

 least two plants are here involved. 'Linnaeus says concerning his 



M 



semma 



_„ anno nobis allata fuere." From this word 



sequence one mig-ht be justified in assuming that the Cliffortian 

 plant was grown not from Indian but from American seed. If 

 this were so, and since no species of this group of Acacia is common 

 to India and America, we have here sufficient grounds for 

 excluding the species from the Indian flora. ^ ^ ^, 



Further, Linnaeus in both the Hort. Cliff, and Sp. ri. quotes 

 references 'to two Indian plants, viz., Pluk. Aim., iv. t. 122 f. 2 

 and Ehecde, Hort. Mai., vi. t. 4. The former figure shows what 

 is judging from the pods, an Acacia, but an examination of the 



