383 



reassessment of their differential characters. In habit and foliage 

 B. superbct) B. minor and B. parviftora are so similar that 

 without flowers one might be confused with either of the others. 

 In fruit all three agree. As regards calyx, stamens and pistil they 

 differ only in size ; in this respect B. minor with calyx 8 mm. 

 long, stands about midway between B. snperba with calyx 16 mm. 

 long, and B. parviflora with calyx 4 mm. long. As regards 

 corolla the three, as the characters detailed below indicate, differ 

 almost equally : 



Butea, Koen. (1795) ; vexillum ovatum, acutum, recurvum ; 

 alae falcatae, acutae, carinae parum adhaerentes ; carina 

 valde incurva, acuta, vexillum alasque aequans ; petala 

 auranliaca ; flores insignes, 5-7 cm. longi. 



Meizotropis, Voigt (1845) ; vexillum ovatum, subobtusum, 

 recurvum ; alae oblique oblongae, liberae ; carina incurva, 

 subobtusa, vexillum alasque superans ; petala aurantiaca ; 

 flores mediocres, l*75-2"75 cm. longi. 



Spatholobus, Hassk. (1842) ; vexillum ovatum vel suborbicul- 

 atum ; alae oblique oblongae, liberae ; carina rectiuscula, 

 obtusa, vexillo alisque brevior ; petala purpurea, rosea vel 

 alba ; flores parvi, 0-6-0-9 cm. longi. 



From this we see that while Meizotropis agrees with Butea, 

 in which it is included by Bentham and Taubert, as regards colour 

 of petals, it agrees better with Spatholobus, which Bentham and 

 Taubert refer to another subtribe, as regards the shape and rela- 

 tionship of the wings. Since the characters to be derived rrom 

 the corolla are insufficient to warrant the generic separation of 

 Meizotropis from Butea, they must be equally inadequate to 

 warrant the generic separation of Spatholobus from the widened 

 Butea in which Meizotropis is merged. The segregation of 

 Spatholobus is so convenient that its perpetuation is desirable, but 

 it has to be recognised that this segregation depends entirely on a 

 difference of facies resulting from the possession of a greater 

 number of smaller and differently coloured flowers, and is un- 

 supported by any morphological character. This being the case, 

 it seems clear that, even if the generic status accorded to bpatho- 

 lobus can be upheld, we are not entitled to refer that genus to a 

 subtribe apart from the one in which Butea (including Mem- 

 tropis) is placed. 



It is just as convenient, considering the small numlw of ^^ 

 involved, to follow Bentham and Taubert in uniting^ to and 

 Meizotropis as it is to follow them in keeping SpathMbus apart 

 Since, however, the definitions given by these h f p u h th t °^ v ai h e a ^ 

 ramed as to exclude the species B. ™™*J^J^Zito£ 

 formally included in Butea, it is desirable to f c ^ f Ctl onai 



rank within their Butea to the group ^f )tro ^\ V ?SZto un- 

 genus by Voigt. The recent communication of a hithert ^ un 

 known Indian species, closely allied to B. mnor. Ham {Mejzo 

 tropis buteaeformis, Voigt), renders the recognition of this section 

 almost essential. 



Dangarh 



Tal 



*ai in the Kamaon Himalaya, by uap*. v. ~. ~r > nted 



S *r J. D. Hooker, who has named it B. pelUa, and has pres ^ 



33819 



