330 
such on the Continent, which is the same as the one known heré 
under the name of brachypoda. A comparison of the Kew 
C. macrophylla with the original type specimens confirmed the 
correctness of the name adopted. Against this it was found that 
are conce in this confusion. In the following classification, 
the forms in question are placed under two species, one having 
opposite leaves, the other alternate. or where the error 
originated is unimportant, but Dr. E. Koehne is responsible for 
describing C. macrophylla, in the place cited below, as having 
r 
Amoy, Fortune, 2; J. H. Veitch in Journ. R. Hort. Soc., 1902-3, 
t. 8261. CC. brachypoda, C. A. ey. i . 
Petersb., vol. vii. (1845), p. 223; Rehder in Sargent Trees and 
Shrubs, vol. i, p. 81, t. 41; Koehne in Gartenfl., vol. xlvi., p. 94. 
C. sanguinea et C. alba, Thunb. FI. Jap., pp. 62, 63, non Linn., et 
C. glauca, Blume ms. (. Thelicanis, Lebas in Rey. Hort. 1875, 
p. 394, f. 64. C. Theleryana et C. Religiana, Hort. C. crispula, 
Hance in Journ. Bot., 1881, vol. xix. p. 216. C. ignorata, 
' . dap. vol. i, nel ct. . 
C. corynostylis, Koehne in Gartenfl., 1896, vol. xlv., p- 286, f£. 51, 
but there are equally highly developed conditions of C. macrophylla 
from umaon, Hupeh, Ningpo, and Nagasaki, all having leaves, 
15-20 em. long on the flowering branches, glaucous beneath, 
and all having large inflorescences. Specimens in the 
rbari 
Cornus brachypoda, ©. A. M., Japonia, may perhaps be accepted as 
