200 SySTEMATIC POSmON OF MITRASTEMOyr. 



iit home or abroad, uutil uearly five years ago, wlien auotber specimeu also 

 in a very imperfect stato was found iu Sliikokii, auotliev southeru island of 

 Japan. The plaut was tlieu lirst examined by T. Makino (MakEsO I., p. 

 326), who witli some hesitatiou regarded it as a plaut ix>ssibly referable to 

 the Kafflesiacese. His opiuiou was based presumably ou a consideration 

 of only the extemal features of the plaut, aud uot upou a caref iil examinatiou 

 of the morphological structiu"e of the flowers, aud certaiuly without studyiug 

 its attachiug orgau or its anatomical character. It was cousidered bj- him 

 to be a plant represeutiug a new genus, and was theu first uamed Mitrastc- 

 iium Ynmamotoi Mk. Later on, towards the eud of 1911, au exhaustive 

 description of the plaut, beautifully iUustrated, was giveu by T. Makixo in 

 the Journal of the Tokyo Botauical Society. lu this aiiicle he regarded 

 the plaut as represeutiug a new family, the Mitrastemouacese, distiuguish- 

 able from tlie Kafflesiacefe by its L-iving a garaophyllous cyhudrical and 

 truncate perianth, a mitriformed staminal coluniue and a superior ovary. A 

 little previously, i.e. iu 1910, auother i^laut rauch like the former was fouud 

 iu the southeru part of the island of Formosa. This parasite, Ijeiug far larger 

 than the Japanese phiut and differing sHghtly from the latter, was couse- 

 quently described by nie as a uew species, Miircitemoji. Kaioa-'<nsa]cii Hy. 

 (Hayata I. p. 112). lu my theu descrixition of this new parasite, I was 

 merely following MAiiiNO, and did uot iu detail go iut»3 the systematic posi- 

 tion of the plant. Later on, I became strougly of opiuiou that tlie plant 

 belouged to the RafflesiaceiB, and accordingly transfeiTed it to that family 



(HvYATA n., p. n.). 



As I have said above, Mitmstemoii was first roferred to the E.afflesiacea}, 

 theu was considered to represeut a uew family, aud eveu to be comparable 

 t<) the Nepenthaceffi (IVLvkino II., p. 252). Consequeutly, the sj-stematic 

 IJositiou of the plant has beeu much confused. lu the preseut paper, it is 

 ray desire to raake a few remarks alwut the systeinatic positiou of the 

 parasite when cousidered frora tlie poiut of a coraparision of its morphological 

 aud anatomical characters with those of other farailies ; aud more especially 

 from a deliberate considei-atiou of the different characters which separate our 

 parasite frora .ill the plants at i>reseut refeiTed to the Rafflesiaceie, to decide 



