363 



steinia and Oleaefolii being misapplied to tlie group of whicli 

 L. elcgans is the sole representative. For this group the sectional 

 name Moqvinia is now suggested. 



The nomenclature of the subordinate groups within the genus 

 Loranthus is in a rather confused state, owing to the very different 

 divisions proposed by various authors. 



In February, 1830, Martins segregated five genera from Loran- 

 thus: Struthanthus , PsittacantJms, Tristerix, Dendroylitlwe and 

 Phthirusa* Of these, the purely American genera Struthanthus, 

 PsittacantJius and Phthirusa are still recognized, whilst Dendro- 

 phthoc has been re-united wdth Loranthus. Tristerix was based on 

 Loranthus virid iflorus , Wall. (Nepal), L. tetrandus, Euiz & 

 Pav. (Chile) and L. Reinwardtianus, Schultes (Java), which are 

 now referred respectively to the genera Elytranthe, Phrygilanthus 



and Loxanthera.'f 



In 1829 Blume prepared the Loranthaceae of his Flora Javae,_t 

 and divided Loranthus into seventeen genera. He sent a synopsis 

 of these to J. A. and J. H. Schultes, who published it in their 

 Systema Vegetabilium, vol. vii. p. 1729 (1830). In the Flora 

 Javae itself, of which the part containing Loranthaceae did not 

 appear until after February, 1830, § Blume assigned only sectional 

 rank to hi^ segregates. Blume's seventeen genera or sections 

 included Lichtensteinia, Wendl. (1810) and Spirostylis, Presl 

 (1829), in addition to the five genera segregated by Martins. The 

 new groups proposed by Blume were : Dendropemon, Lipotactes, 

 Phoenicanthemiim, Loxanthera, Tapinanthus, Elytranthe, Macro- 

 solen, Tolypanthus and Lepeostegeres. He restricted Tristerix, 

 Mart., to L. tetrandrus, Ruiz & Pav., transferring to Macrosolen 

 the two Asiatic species included by Martins. 1! 



A. P. He Candolle proposed a very different classification of 

 Lora7ithus in 1830. This was published in outline in his memoir on 

 the Loranthaceae, and elaborated in the Prodromus. ^ Be Candolle 

 corresponded with Blume about the Loranthaceae in 1829, and 

 knew of Blume's unpublished genera, Lepeostegeres, Elytranthe 

 and Loxanthera,1 but was unacquainted with the remaining one*' 

 until after the completion of his work. He saw Martius's classi- 

 fication, however, in time to incorporate it in the Addenda to vol. 

 iv. of the Prodromus. The following synopsis of He Candolle' s 

 classification indicates how Blume's groups correspond with He 

 Candolle's. 



Sect. I. Eitloranthus, DC. Petals free; anthers bayifixed or 

 adnate. — Loranthus ^ Dcndrofewony Lipotactes, Phoenicanthe- 

 mum, Dendrophthoe (part), Phthirusa, Striithanthus (part). 



Sect, II. Symphyanthus, DC. Petals united into a regular 

 corolla ; anthers basifixcd. — Dendrophfhde (part), Elytranthe^ 

 Macrosolen (part), Tolypanthus, Lepeostegeres. 



* Flora, 1830, vol. i., p. 102. 



t Gamble in Journ. As. See. Beng., vol. Ixxv., pp. 378, 369 (1914); Eichler 



in Fl. Bras , vol. v., pars. 2, p. 47 (1868). 



X Mus. Bot. Lun;d.-Bat,, vol. i., p. 243. 



§ On p. 10 he quotes Hot. Zeic, 1830, No. 7; Pfeiffer is therefore incorrect 

 in statinor that Blume's Fl. Jav. Loranth. were published in 1829, 



|| FL Jav. Loranth., p. 17. 



f DC. Prodr.. vol. iv., pp. 296, 298, 299, 316. 



