1914-15. J BOTANICAL SOCIETY OF EDINBURGH 311 



that we must refer the varieties (6) rotund if olia and (c) 

 glabrescens of P. obconica, Hance, to which I have drawn 

 attention. 1 One finds besides forms of transition between 

 the plant of Hance and that of King, which raise doubt of 

 their specific dissociation. Amongst the many specimens 

 from Yunnan which are in the Paris Herbarium, some 

 resemble absolutely the Manipur type described by King ; 

 amongst others the leaves are larger and tend to the oval 

 form, the villousness increases, and the hairs become longer, 

 in a fashion making it difficult to separate P. Lister i, King, 

 from P. obcon ica, Hance. The calyx and corolla are almost 

 identical in the two plants." 



I have made some effort to arrive at a clear interpretation 

 of Franchet's views as expressed in the preceding para- 

 graphs. The words seem to imply this : — 



1. There are two species — P. obconica, Hance, and P. 

 Listeri, King, which are with difficulty separable. 



2. P. obconica, Hance, var. (a) hispida, Franch., is to be 

 referred to P. obconica, Hance. 



3. P. obconica, Hance, var. (b) rot unci if olio, Franch., and 

 var. (c) glabrescens, Franch., are to be referred to P. Listeri, 

 King. 



Franchet does not say definitely whether in his view 

 these varieties should be maintained as such under the 

 respective species. The issue is: — 



Did Franchet look upon the relationships ultimately as 

 justifying the following grouping : 



P. obconica, Hance, 



var. hispida, Franch.; 

 P. Listeri, King, 



var. rotundifolia, Franch.; 

 var. glabrescens, Franch.; 

 or 



Did he by his latest utterance on the subject in 1888 

 intend to indicate that he wished to suppress the varietal 

 designations which in 1886 he had put forward for forms 

 of P. obconica, Hance, and that to him there were but two 

 forms worthy of naming in the whole alliance, namely : — 

 P. obconica, Hance, in which the var. hispida, Franch., 

 merges ; 



1 In Bull. Soc. Bot. France, xxxiii (1886), 66. 



