5 
fruit is poor and contrasts unfavourably with his excellent repre- 
sentation of the inflorescence and flowers. 
It is evident that my Form i. is Rhizophora Mangle as defined 
by Jacquin. 
Meyer’s description of Rhizophora racemosa* is less satistac- 
tory. ‘‘Inflorescentia composita haec stirps insigni modo a 
But both my Forms ii. and ili. have compound inflorescences, 
and they are clearly distinct species. Of the cymes Meyer says 
“rami et ramuli crassi . . . quinquies vel sexies repetito- 
dichotom1 multiflori . . . in utraque dichotomia e margine 
calyciformi sexdentato enati’’, all of which agrees with m 
Form iii.; but he concludes with “‘ flores et fructus Lhizophorae 
Mangle, sed petala pilosa’. The flowers and fruit of my 
are elliptical or 
slightly ovate, instead of cuneate as in the case ot R. Mangle 
Mangle has a radicle which is frequently entirely red-brown. 
Moreover, the pericarp of my Form ii. is very stout and is often 
curved. e petals in fresh specimens of my Form 1. are 
Oliver, in describing Rhizophora racemosa from Tropical 
Africa, says ‘‘Flowers in pedunculate, divaricate, shortly-jointed, 
Binfais : 
more or less”?. In my Form iii. the joints of the cymes are 
distinctly shorter than in Form u., and sometimes may be 
* © Primitiae Florae Essequeboensis,” p. 185. 
