398 
evident from the description of Mimosa grandiflora L’Heérit. 
that it cannot be the same as Kunth’s plant Jnga anomala, 
which has the divisions of the pinnae usually distinctly confluent 
and very oblique at base. I think there is no reasonable doubt 
but that it is rather referable to C. Houstoni (L’Hérit.) Benth., 
a species which varies in the number of pinnae and the degree 
to which the leaflets are confluent.” But there is convincing 
evidence that Mimosa grandiflora is conspecific with Inga anomala. 
L’Héritier described M. grandiflora in 1788 from a plant cultivated 
“in hortis juxta Londinum, imprimis in horto regio Kewensi.”’ 
It may be assumed, therefore, that the species cultivated at Kew 
under that name was true M. grandiflora; and a contemporary 
specimen labelled “‘ Mimosa grandiflora Kew. Septr.” from the 
Herbarium of Bishop Goodenough, now in the Kew Herbarium, 
(see Kew Report, 1880, 64; 1881) agrees with the plate and 
description of Inga anomala Kunth. Another contemporary 
specimen of this species marked ‘‘ M. grandiflora. Hort. Dni. 
Vere in Kensington Gore 1789” is preserved in the herbarium 
at the British Museum. MM. grandiflora was included in the 
first and second edition of Aiton’s Hortus Kewensis, so that it 
was in cultivation at Kew at any rate until 1813. In the mean- 
time it had been figured in Andrew’s Bot. Rep. ix. t. 592 (1810), 
and this figure was cited by W. T. Aiton in the second edition 
of the Hortus Kewensis. Andrew’s figure, also, represents Inga 
anomala. There is, therefore, no reason for changing the name 
Calliandra grandiflora ( L’Hérit.) Benth. Macbride’s suggestion 
that Mimosa grandiflora is synonymous with M. Houstoni is 
somewhat surprising in view of the fact that L’Héritier, who 
had seen both species in a living state, carefully distinguished 
them. lL ’Héritier’s diagnostic phrase of M. grandiflora may not 
seem very applicable to is nga anomala, but it is utterly irrecon- 
cilable with M. Houston 
The material of C. nlibeire om from Chihuahua, Sinaloa, and 
Jalisco may possibly represent a distinct variety or even species. 
The number of pinnae is, on the whole, fewer, the calyx is smaller 
in proportion to the corolla, and the indumentum of the flowers 
is composed of short, stiff, appressed, gray hairs, which gives the 
inflorescence a very different appearance 
C. Houstoniana (Jiil.) Standley in CNH. xxiii. 386 (1922).— 
Mimosa Houstoniana Mill.; Mimosa sp., Rel. Houst. t. 26 (1781). 
M. Houston: L’Heérit. Sert. Angl. 30 (1788). Calliandra Houstoni 
Benth.; Trans. Linn. Soc. xxx. 556. Anneslia falcifolia Salish. 
in W. Hook. Parad. Lond. i. t. 64 (1807). Acacia metrosiderifiora 
Schlecht. in Linnaea, xii. 567 (1838). Acacia americana, non 
spinosa, flore purpureo, staminibus longissimis, siliquis soe) 
villosis, pinnis foliorum tenuissimis Houst. ex Mill. Fig. Pl. Gard 
Dict. 4, t. 5 (1755). 
San Ignacio; Los Sabinos, 280 m. sane 256. 
Vernacular names “ Day ”, “'Tabar 
In Sinaloa the bark is chewed to bardsa® the gums (Standley). 
