3 
corresponding part of his description. Miquei’s emended descrip- 
tion of C. madagascariensis is therefore wrong to that extent. 
In his ‘ Epicrisis Systematis Cycadearum’ (1849)* Miquel, 
reverting to the species, took u rown’s name Cycas 
Lhouarsui which he had previously overlooked. The paper con- 
tains only a brief diagnosis of the species which corresponds to 
Petit Thouars’s plant. In a paper entitled ‘‘ Nouveaux materiaux 
pour servir 4 la connaisance des Cycadées’’ Miquel, in 1868+, 
once more used R. Brown’s name in the place of his 
own name C. madagascariensis. Meanwhile De Candolle had 
worked out the Cycadaceae for the Prodromus (vol. xvi. ii. 1868, 
pp. 528-547). Following Miquel, he accepted R. Brown’s earlier 
name ©. Thouarsii, but as he had seen no specimens of the plant 
and as he was aware of the somewhat contradictory evidence con- 
tained in the literature relating to this Cycas he placed it among 
the ‘‘Species minus notae’’ with this remark: ‘Num sit C. 
Rumphi vel C. circinalis, vel propria species, hoc ulterius 
Parisiis investigandum esset. Spadix femineus crenatus in icone 
Pet. Th. figuratus a formis indicis omnino differt.’’ Nor was 
De Candolle certain that the species is really a native of Mada- 
label by Desfontaines ‘‘ Madagascar. Commerson”’; (3) speci- 
mens collected by Boivin? in the islands of Anjouan (Johanna) — 
and Mayotte. I have not seen any of these specimens, but w 
call attention to the following considerations. Petit Thouars a 
Samble de Madagascar,”’ though he, too, found it 
Réduit in Mauritius. It has since been collected in “ Central : 
* In Tijdschr. v. Wis. en Nat. Wetens. IT. p. 287. 
n Archives Neerlandaises, III. p. 236 
t This would have been probably in 1847. a 
growing at : 
