294 WILSON EXPEDITION TO CHINA 



This species looks like a very glabrous variety of M. cathayana Hemsley, but 

 I think it better to make it a species on account of the distinctly longer style and 

 the long peduncles. The style is of about the same length as in M. acidosa Griffith, 

 but in its narrow cylindric fruiting aments, in the shape of its leaves and in other 

 characters M. notabilis belongs to the same group as M. cathayana and M. 

 laevigata Walhch, which seem to represent a distinct section. 



Morus alba Linnaeus, Spec. 986 (1753). — Roxburgh, FL Ind. 

 ed. 2, III. 594 (1832). — Loudon, Arb. Brit. III. 1348 (1838).— 

 Moretti in Giorn. 1st. Lomhardo, I. 180 (1841); Prodr. Monog. Gen. 

 Morus, 19 (1842). — Spach, Hist. Veg. XL 42 (1842). — Seringe, 

 Descr. Cult. Muriers, 191, t. 1-18 (1855). — Kirchner in Petzold & 

 Kirchner, Arh. Muse. 543 (1864). — Miquel in Ann. Mus. Lugd.- 

 Bat. 11. 197 '(1866); Prol. Fl. Jap. 129 (1866). — Brandis, Forest 

 Fl. Ind. 407, t. 47 (an pro parte?) (1874); Ind. Trees, 612 (1906).— 

 Franchet & Savatier, Enum. PI. Jap. 1. 432 (1875). — Hooker f., 

 Fl. Brit. Ind. V. 492 (1888). — Hemsley in Jour. Linn. Soc. XXVI. 

 455 (pro parte) (1894). — E. Pritzel in Bot. Jahrb. XXIX. 297 

 (exclud. var. plur.) (1900). — CoUett, Fl. Siml. 457 (1902). — Ko- 

 marov in Act. Hort. Petrop. XXIL 91 (pro parte minima) (1903). — 

 Schneider, III. Handb. Laubholzk. I. 236, fig. 151 b-c, 152, 153 h-p 

 (1904). — Nakai in Jour. Coll. Sci. Tokyo, XXXI. 193 {Fl. Kor. 11.) 

 (pro parte) (1911). — Ascherson & Graebner, Syn. Mitteleur. Fl. 

 IV. 578 (1911). — Henry in Elwes & Henry, Trees Great Brit. & Irel. 

 VI. 1609 (exclud. var. 1-2) (1912). 



Morus indica ^ Linnaeus, S-pec. ed. 2, 1398 (pro parte) (1763). — Burman in 

 Rumphius, Herb. Amboin. Auctuar. 8, t. 5 (1755). — Poiret, Enc. Meth. 



^ M. indica Linnaeus, Spec. 986 (1753) is founded on " Fl. zeyl. 337 " and on 

 " Tinda-parua Rheed. mal. I. p. 87, t. 49 " (recte 48). Linnaeus (Fl. Zeyl. 160, 

 No. 337 [1747]) in the first place cites " Betulae species, conis oblongis villosis, 

 foliis oblongis serratis. Herm. zeyl. 33. Burm. zeyl. 47." I have not seen Her- 

 mann's book. Burman (Thes. Zeyl. 47 [1737]) only quotes the same phrase 

 from Hermann (Mus. Zeyl. 33 [1717]) that Linnaeus does. In the second place 

 Linnaeus quotes " Arbor malabarica baccifera cortice albicante, glomerato flore. 

 Comm. mal. 29." Commelin (Fl. Malab. 29 [1700]) quotes the same phrase and 

 adds " Tinda Parua Mal.," which tree is quoted also by Linnaeus in Flora Zeylanica. 

 The " Tinda Parua " is no Morus, but the same as Streblus asper Loureiro (Fl. 

 Cochin. II. 615 [1790]). I do not know what this " Betulae species " of Hermann 

 really is, but there is no indication of a Morus in any Flora of Ceylon. 



In the second edition of the Species plantarum Linnaeus added as a synonym 

 " Rumph. Amb. VII. t. 5," which apparently is nothing else than M. alba and 

 not the same as M. indica Roxburgh (see under M. acidosa). Seringe (Descr. Cult. 

 Muriers, 229 [1855]) also beheves that Rumphius's plate represents M. alba, and 

 he reproduces parts of Rumphius's and Rheede's drawings in his Atlas, t. 21, but 

 he regards the " Tinda-Parua " as a good species of Morus under the name M. 

 indica. 



