310 
the general nature and aestivation of the flower, as well as in most 
the anatomical characters of the leaf and stem. The only 
important differences noticed between “ Kokoti” and Macarisia 
phoraceous 
Comparison with the description of Anopyzis, Engler (Engl. & 
Prantl, Nat. Pflanz. Nachtr. ii. p. 49) suggested that “ Kokoti” 
might be referable to that genus. Anopyxis was originally 
described as a section of Macarisia by Pierre (Bull. Soc. Linn. 
Par. n.8. p. 74), who based it on a specimen collected in the Gaboon 
by Klaine. Klaine’s specimen included fruits but no flowers, 
Owing to Pierre’s death, however, his herbarium was temporarily © 
maccessible, and the description of “ Kokoti” was accordingly held 
ck until an opportunity should occur for examining the type of 
Macarisia Klaineana, Pierre (Anopyzis Klaineana, Engl.). 
{n the meantime De Wildeman described what is obviously the 
: ¢ type of a new genus and species of 
Meliaceae, Pynaertia ealaénsis in Ann. Mus. Congo, sér. 5, vol. ii. 
p- 262, t.84. “ Kokoti” has a sparingly pilose style, and P. ealaénsis 
1s described as having a glabrous style, but there is no other 
ao. The stipules 
8 of P. ealaénsis are not figured or described, 
aving evidently fallen off. 
Pierre’s herbarium was bequeathed to the Natural History 
ae eae? Paris, and it has now been possible, through the courtesy 
ro : i 
: os fruit of Anopyzis is almost the same as that of Macarisia. 
Peer oe vegetative characters of Pynaertia ealaénsis an 
the Geese i hasgee are Moran: seotcele apart from the shape of 
} eis € anatomical c 
tee close agreement. aracters of these two plants also 
ow T he vegetative characters, both ext sy 
indicate affinity with Macarisia, > ernal and anatomical, 
