180 
Makino gives of O. japonicus, which he also says is only known 
in the male state, and from the fact that when in a later paper 
(Bot. Mag. Tokyo, vol. xxiii., 1909, p. 14) reducing O. japonicus to 
a var. of 0. Aquzfolium, he quotes the figures in Regel’s Gartenflora 
(1879), p. 276, and Dippel’s Laubholzk., vol. i. p. 140, as repre- 
senting this plant. Those figures, however, are, as has already 
been pointed out above, actually figures of O. Fortunet. So far as 
the morphological characters of O. Fortune? are concerned, much 
may be said in favour of the hypothesis of its hybrid origin, 
although it cannot be considered as proved until the same plant is 
actually produced by crossing the two assumed parents, which — 
should be easy enough; or until it is found growing among them ina 
natural state, and under conditions which are equivalent to an 
experimental proof. 
Some support of Makino’s theory might also be deduced from 
the Japanese names of the species involved, O. Aquifolium_being 
“ Hiragi,” O. fragrans “ Mokusei” and O. Fortunei “ Hiragi- 
Mokusei.” 
Makino, as has been stated above, treated O. japonicus in a 
later paper as a variety of O. Aquifolium, but as he does not give 
any reasons for doing so, it may be sufficient to refer here to 
what has been said above regarding the differences between 
O. Aquifolium and O. Fortunei, and to distinguish them under those 
names whether the latter should in the end prove to be a hybrid 
or not. The use of the name O. Fortunei, which is not referred 
to by Makino, in the place of O. japonicus requires some explana~ 
tion. Osmanthus japonicus was mentioned first by Siebold in his 
Synopsis Plantarum Oecon. Regni Japonici [in Verh. Batav. Gen., 
vol. xii., 1830, p. 36]. It appears there merely as a name -for some 
tree which is much valued in Japan on account of its wood and 
fragrans, 
