296 
NOTE ON MELASTOMA REPENS, Desrouss. 
By Henry F. Hance, PAD., ETO. 
The plant first described in Lamarck’s ‘ Encyclopédie,’ in 1797, 
under the above name, was transferred by De Candolle, in his revision 
of the family to which it belongs, to the genus Osdechia.* M. Nau- 
din, in his * Melastomacearum Monographia Revisio, T restored it to 
its original station, in which he was followed by Mr. Bentham.f 
Prof. Blume,$ just one year prior to the appearance of Naudin's me- 
moir, formed it, Osbeckia aspera, and a few others, into the genus 
Asterostoma, with the observation, ** Alize vero species ex Asia tropicá, 
quo et complures Osbeckias ex Africa pertinere probabile, tam vegeta- 
tione quam conformatione calycis admodum conveniunt cum Melasto- 
mate, Burm., licet connectivo antherarum abbreviato et imprimis 
capsulis siccis apice loculicide dehiscentibus differant." Dr. Hooker, 
who speut many months in the thorough examination of the immense 
materials at Kew, and who has entirely recast the tribes and genera 
in this most intricate Order, simply remarks, * Genus a Blumeo pro- 
positum Asterostoma nobis ab Osbeckia haud separandum videtur." I 
confess I am at a loss to understand the grounds on which this emi- 
nent botanist has arrived at such a conclusion, so far as M. repens is 
concerned, which I will add does not fall into the genus Osbeckia, as 
defined by himself. Of the only four species mentioned by name by 
Blume as appertaining to Asterostoma, O. Manillana, De Cand., and O. 
aspera, Bl., are included amongst Osbeckia by Naudin, who had ex- 
amined authentic specimens, whilst O. octandra is placed amongst the 
species incerta, and is by Dr. Thwaites** doubtfully quoted as a synonym 
of O. virgata, Don. O. aspera appears to me in every respect a genuine 
Osbeckia ; with the other two I am unacquainted. The case is, how- 
ever, widely different with regard to O. repens, De Cand., and Blume 
is altogether inaccurate in assigning to it an abbreviated connective 
and dry capsule. The stamens in this plant (and my observations are 
made on living specimens) are absolutely undistinguishable from those 
* Prodr. Syst. Nat. Regn. Veg. iii. 142 (1828). 
t Ann. Se. Nat. 3 sér. xiii. 274. (1850. The title page has 1819, by mistake.) 
iF. Hongkong. 114 (1861) 
8 Mus. Bot t. Lugd.-Bat. i. w (1849). 
]| Gen. Plant. i. 745 (1867). ** Enum. Pl. Zeylan. 116 (1859). 
