191 
pass-out»separately’from theevascularring in’ the: upper part of tthe 
internode, and-stop»at‘ the next node, where | they apparently! behave 
in'the same way-as' the four bundles due: to:sub-division of the two 
‘On account of the presence of cortical bundles in Peg lera vand 
Nectaropetalum (and especially the behaviour of these bundles'in'the 
atter genus),-and' the general-agreement with the Erythrorjlaceac * 
shown by the anatomy of thestem andileaf, there can be little doubt 
that these two genera belong to that fami y. 
XXI—NOTES ON THE INDIAN SPECIES OF 
SAMBUCUS, 
J. HutrcuHinson, 
Recent enquiries received .at Kew regarding the occurrence. of 
Sambucus -Ebulus, Linn., in India -have rendered it. necessary to 
re-examine .the Indian specimens referred to that species by. the 
late Mr. C..B..Clarke and others. 
In 1890 Dr. R. von Wettstein described a new -species of 
Sambucus fromthe: Himalaya under the name of S..Gautsehii and 
referred to it the avhole of ‘the Kashmir ‘material mentioned by 
Clarke under S§. Hbulus. His description was drawn up from 
plants, raised in the Botanic Garden of the Vienna University, from 
seeds distributed by .the Saharanpur Botanic Garden in 1886. 
Dr. von ‘Wettstein was no doubt right in distinguishing ‘this 
Sambucus from $, Ebulus, for’ the latter evidently does not occur in 
India at all: but ‘he appears to have -overloo. ed S. Wightiana, 
Wall. apud Wight and ‘Arnott, a “fairly good description of which 
is given in‘Wight and ‘Arnott’s Prodromus, p. 388 ; or he may have 
been misled by ‘Clarke’s identification of S. Wightiana with 
» javanica. ‘From ‘an examination of the ‘type specimen of 
S. Wightiana in Wallich’s herbarium at ‘the Linnean Society, 
consisting of a ‘fruiting specimen, there is little doubt as to its 
identity with Clarke’s “‘S. Ebulus” and Wettstein’s S. ‘Gautsthir, 
and as S. Wightiana'is much the earlier name it should in future’ be 
employed for the Kashmir plant. Unfortunately, however, there 
some uncertainty about the origin of the type go oe. 
S. Wightiana. ‘Wallich in the Catalogue (no. 6303), as wel ols 
the label, quoted merely Hb. Wight, whilst Wight in his gy in 
(no. 1252) and in Wight and Arnott Lc. refers to Wallich. heir 
the fact that the plant was taken up by Wight and Arnott int me 
Prodromus, it might be inferred that their specimen was from the 
or : ae Systematic Anatomy (ELrythroxylon &e., 
under Timisey ne te oe 159, sy The leaves of Bry cbgs oa Hinge" 
natum differ only in unimportant characters from those of sd vt “an 
Nectar um. The midrib is practically the same as in Peglera, and there are 
no epidermal papillae. 
