CHARACTERISTICS OF CEPHALOTAXI 241 



flower — and rafo? (Yew) ; while the other effort in 

 nomenclature, Podocarpus, is traced to 7ro8o9 (foot) 

 and Kapiro^ (fruit), in reference to the swollen stalk 

 or peduncle of the fruits ; an example of word- 

 painting that we must remark, en passant, must be 

 to some painfully reminiscent of that human frailty 

 we commonly call gout. 



Their appearance too, comely as we think it in 

 approved places, hardl}' incites pictorial notice. 

 There is no record, poetical or even prosaic, as far 

 as we know, of Youth sporting with Amaryllis in their 

 subtle shade, or Dr^^ad dancing beneath their canopy. 

 Maori maidens may, for all we know, have played 

 such pranks under their spacious boughs, for the 

 Podocarpus Totara, in its native soil, is second only 

 in repute to the giant Kauri Pine (Agathis Australis) 

 of New Zealand fame ; and the New Zealander, on 

 a visit to the Mother Country, in spite of the rather 

 abject appearance it presents here, if perchance a 

 sight of it meets his eye, hails it as an old friend and 

 pays meet adoration to it as a household god. 



We will now treat of the family differences of the 

 Cephalotaxi, inter se. The C. Drupacea is easily 

 distinguished from the C. Pedunculata and the C. 

 Fortunei by its shorter leaves, with their fewer stomata 

 and other differences referred to in the table, p. 298. 



When w^e attempt to explore the shifting grounds 

 of the family differences of the C. Pedunculata and 

 the C. Fortunei we near trouble. Parents, and those 

 very intimate with them, can, it is said, often when 

 others farther afield signally fail, recognize human 

 twins of closest resemblance. Whether it may be 

 accounted a confession of weakness or not, the 

 differences between these two species of trees must 

 have caused many novices as much bewilderment 

 in dissociation as ever pair of heavenly twins caused 

 any one inside a nursery, or outside a family circle. 



