88 
ment, published in 1906, is due td a misreading of the original 
record of an incident which occurred in Persia (Kew Bulletin, 
1889 p. 279), and to Kobert having overlooked the sequel to that 
record (Kew Bulletin, 1896, p. 233). The specimens sent from 
Persia as ‘ Tatuleh ’ did in reality belong to C. tinctoria, Stewart 
(1869) non Linn., which is identical with C. hierosolymitana, 
Spr. (1826), but it eventually became known that it probably was 
the true ‘Tatuleh ’, Datura Tatula, Willd., specimens of which 
were not sent, which actually caused the six deaths. 
ba. C. subplicata (l.c. p. 24) is C. tinctoria 6. subplicata, Mill.- 
arg. (1866), advanced in status. The suggestion as to the parent- 
age of this supposed hybrid is taken up from Boissier, not from 
Schweinfurth, who notwithstanding the fact that C. subplicata 
has lepidote capsules, has treated it, in the manuscript note to 
whic offmann refer, as a hybrid between Croton 
plicatum, Vahl, and Croton obliquifolium, Vis. (1836), both of 
which have stellate-pubescent capsules and are, as Schweinfurth 
subsequently admitted, only varities of a single species. The 
reference of specimens of the erect C. oblongifolia from Kosseir to 
the prostrate C. plicata, is copied from Boissier’s account of 
1879. The erect Afghan plant, also referred in the ‘ Pflanzen- 
reich’ to the prostrate C. plicata, is C. hierosolymitana, Spr. 
(1826), with a larger number of stamens than usual.’ 
6 C. glabrata (l.c. p. 24) is, as Pax and Hoffman have stated, 
the most easily recognised of all the forms in the genus Chrozo- 
phora. It is not, however, the most distinct. In their remarks 
on the phylogeny of this form Pax and Hoffmann have regarded 
it as a derivative of (. tinctoria (l.c. p. 18) but in their notes 
under the description of the plant they have said that it is ex- 
tremely distinct from C. tinctoria and is more closely related to 
C. verbascifolia, though still distinguishable at a glance from the 
latter species. Of these two views the former appears to have been 
adopted from Heldreich who, when he first obtained specimens, 
named it C. tinctoria, var. glabrata (Parnassos p. 277). The 
second view is undoubtedly the more satisfactory. Yet, notwith- 
standing the very different facies of the plant, due to the almost 
complete absence of the characteristic loose woolly tomentum, a 
careful examination of the original type leads to the impression 
that this plant is no more than a nearly glabrous sport or condi- 
tion of C. obliqua, A. Juss., hardly deserving to rank as a dis- 
tinct variety. 
Y oblongfolia (l.c 
ee Del. 
with the erroneous identification suggested by Miiller in 
this species has been perpetrated in the ‘Pflanzenreich ’ and a 
new inadvertence has been introduced by the reference to C. ob- 
aaa 
Mae See 
