8 
No doubt the characters given in the table may have to be 
amended in details when tested on more ample material than is 
at present available, but at the same time they make it perfectly 
clear that the affinity of C. Thouarsii lies with C. Ru mphat rather 
than with C, circinalis which contrasts markedly with both. 
separated would run the risk of being obscured. For practical 
purposes they will always have to be treated as distinct entities. 
II.—AFRICAN MORINDAS. 
J. Hurcuinson. 
In the Flora of ‘Tropical Africa (vol. iii. pp. 191-2), Hiera 
describes two species of Morinda (Rubiaceae), M. citrifolia, 
Tinn., and M. ongiflora, G. Don. 
: nder “ , cvtrifolia,”’ according to Hiern’s conception, I 
find there are two distinct species represented, neither of which 
can be said to agree with M. citrifolia, Linn., an Fast Indian, 
Malayan and Polynesian species. The points in which these 
bet awit species, M. lucida, Benth., and M. geminata, DC., 
fin i — = other and from the true M. citrifolia are shown 
M. citrifolia, Linn.- stipyl , i 
: , ‘3, Stipules large and foliaceous, mostly 
i ao Se peduncles solitary, shorter or as long as the fruit- 
hé 
M. geminata, DC (=M. citrifoli 
gem » (= Mc ta, Hiern, partly, not of 
ao Stipules small and persistent, never Btiteons . peduncles 
—— invariably paired, becoming thickened and elongated in 
a pe much longer than the fruit-body, : 
a f “— Benth. (=4. citrifolia, Uiern, partly, not of Linn.); 
stipu ne arge and foliaceous, but soon decidous; peduncles 
tee or in threes, long and slender, much longer than the 
fruit-body 
Morinda citrifolia, Linn. 
account of certain economic i : ’ 
ia aes Se cei From its roots the A’l 
Dict. Econ. Prod. India, vy. 260-7 
Both are usec in medicine by the 
eoke, (ee note under 1/, geminata a <ousend a sri ane 
ia ; : 
giflora, G. D two quite dis- 
utchinson. The latter his been deserihed and M. confusa, 
. me n described b 
Gaertnera morindoides (Loganiaceae), but it Me Bie = 
