436 WILSON EXPEDITION TO CHINA 



September 17, 1892, C. S. Sargent (tree 10-13 m. tall, girth 6 m.; sterile); same 

 place, October 16, 1892, J. H. Veitch (fruits) ; same locality, October 19, 1903, S. 

 Arimoto (fruits); prov. Oshima, Hakodate, 1861, C. Maximowicz (flowers); same 

 place, 1861, M. Albrecht (fruits). Hondo: prov. Mutsu, Fukura, September 12, 

 1892, J. H. Veitch (sterile, very large leaves) ; prov. Rikuchu, base of Hayachine-san, 

 near Kadoma, alt. 1200 m., September 28, 1914, E. H. Wilson (No. 7587; tree 

 12-13 m. tall, head bushy; interesting form, see below) ; same locality, common, side 

 of streams, alt. 700-1200 m., September 28, 1914, E. H. Wilson (No. 7586; small 

 tree, 8-12 m. tall, girth 0.9-1.2 m. ; fruits) ; prov. Shimotsuke, around Lake Chuzenji, 

 woods, common, alt. 1300-1600 m.. May 24, 1914, E. H. Wilson (No. 6740; tree 

 12-17 m. tall, girth 0.9-1.2 m., bark rough, gray; flowers); same locality. May 26, 

 1914, E. H. Wilson (No. 6769; tree 8-13 m. tall, girth 0.9-1.5 m.; flowers); same 

 locality, August 30, 1904, N. Mochizuki (fruits) ; Nikko, October 17, 1892, J. H. 

 Veitch (fruits); prov. Sliinano: Hashide to Otake, thickets and woodlands, June 

 10, 1914, E. H. Wilson (No. 7001; tree 10-13 m. tall, girth 0.9-1.8 m.; unripe 

 fruits); prov. Musashi, Mt. Buko, May 2, 1909 (ex Herb. Sakurai; young fruits); 

 cultivated, Tokyo Bot. Garden, April 12, 1914, E. H. Wilson (No. 6413; small tree, 

 7 m. tall, bark pale gray, slightly furrowed; flowers); prov. Suruga, Fuji-san, July 

 29, 1891, K. Watanabe (fruits); same locahty, 1864, Tschonoski (flowers); 1862, 

 C. Maximowicz (fruits); without exact locality, alt. 600-2100 m., C. Maries 

 (flowers); May 13, 1886, H. Mayr (young fruits); 1886, H. Mayr (fruits). 



This is a very well marked species in the shape of its leaves and in the bristly hairs 

 at the base of the fruiting bracts. These bracts are very variable in shape, especially 

 in the size and shape of the lobe which covers the nutlet. Winkler (1914) has de- 

 scribed several varieties. These need further investigation, as 1 have found many 

 even more distinct forms than those described by Winkler. I mention the follow- 

 ing without distinguishing them as varieties. The variability of the female bracts 

 seems to be so great that it needs the comparison of copious material to show 

 w^hat variations can be regarded as well fixed and worthy of special systematic 

 treatment. 



The most common form ^ has large ovate or ovate-elliptical acute bracts hav- 

 ing several teeth on the outer margin, which usually is slightly folded in at the 

 base, and from 1 to 4 teeth near the top of the inner margin, which otherwise is 

 entire with the exception of the lobe at its base covering the nutlet. This lobe is 

 large and connected with the inner margin of the bract for nearly its entire length; 

 its upper margin is acute with mostly from 2 to 4 teeth. In var. Faurieana 

 Winkler (in Bot. Jahrb. L. Suppl. 489 [1914]), of which one type specimen is men- 

 tioned above, the lobe is more rounded at the top and though a little smaller also 

 covers the whole nutlet. In var. robusta Winkler (1. c. fig. 1 a) the lobe is large and 

 toothed, and is connected with the bract for only about half its length, and in var. 

 pseudojaponica Winkler (1. c. 491, fig. 1 b-d) the connection of the lobe with the 

 bract is even less broad. But this condition of the lobe is even more distinctly 

 developed in No. 1530 of Faurie from Hallai-san. In this specimen the lobe is 

 narrow and connected with the bract only on its base, the shape of the bract 

 being ovate-lanceolate. In Quelpaert on Hallai-san we find always very peculiar 

 forms and often endemic species. No. 1531 of Faurie also deserves a special men- 

 tion. On this specimen the lobe is very small, entire and semicircular. Another 

 remarkable variation appears in Taquet's No. 4441 from Quelpaert; on this speci- 

 men the lobe has about the normal size and shape, but it is fissured for from | to 



1 I have not seen Blume's type specimen, and Winkler does not mention that he 

 has seen it, therefore I do not know what the type really is, because Blume did not 

 describe the form of the lobes of the fruiting bracts. 



