Mr. J. Miers on the Menispermacez. 371 
donibus semiteretibus, incumbentibus, radicula supera ad sty- 
lum spectante paulo brevioribus. 
Frutices scandentes Asie intertropice ; ramuli teretes, retrorsum 
tomentosi ; folia subrotunda, subcordata, pubescentia, 5—7-nervia, 
longiuscule petiolata, petiolo paulo intra marginem affizo ; in- 
florescentia supra-azillaris, pubescens, paniculata, trichotome 
divisa, ramis divaricatis iterumque compositis; flores breviter 
pedicellati, minimt, villosi. 
The following species are described in the third volume of the 
‘Contributions to Botany ’°— 
1. Pericampylus incanus, nob.; Cocculus incanus, Coleb.—Asia 
intertropica. 
2. Assamicus, nob.—Assam (Jenkins). 
3. aduncus, nob.— Bootan (Griffiths). 
4. membranaceus, nob.; Cocculus membranaceus, Wall.— 
Ind. orient. 
22. PsELIUM. 
In 1851 ] formed the character of this genus from the ex- 
amination of Loureiro’s typical specimen in the British Museum, 
which has only male flowers. That botanist, however, was wrong 
in his generic details, as it is evident that the plant from which 
he derived the character of the female flower and seed must have 
been a Stephania: in his description of the male flower, he is 
incorrect in stating that its six petals are twice the length of 
the six sepals. The authors of the ‘ Flora Indica’ declare that 
Loureiro’s specimen above mentioned is clearly identical with 
Pericampylus incanus: I admit that, as far as regards the leaves, 
there is much resemblance, but not so in the character of the 
inflorescence, its very short panicle being very different from the 
widely spread umbellate inflorescence of Pericampylus incanus ; 
its sepals are pilose on both sides, its petals being only one-fifth 
of their length ; the stamens are confluent for more than half 
their length in a monadelphous column, the union of the three 
more central being continued to nearly their summit; the fila- 
ments are not clavate at the apex, and the anthers are differently 
constructed. If the union of the stamens had been continued 
up to the anthers, Loureiro’s specimen would not have differed 
from a Stephania; and had they been disunited to the base, 
it would have been a Pericampylus. Under these circumstances, 
although I confess the difference is small, I should not be justi- 
fied in abolishing Loureiro’s genus. In many other genera of 
the family a similar feature gives one of their chief distinctive 
characters; in the union of three of its six filaments into a cen- 
tral column we have a parallel in Coscintwm; in Triclisia, its six 
stamens are combined together for half or a third of their length ; 
24« 
