MORACEAE. — BROUSSONETIA 303 



Morus intermedia Perrottet in Arch. Bot. I. 234, t. 7 (1833); in Ann. Sci. 



Nat. 86t. 2, XIII. 315 (1840). 

 Morus indica Perrottet in Ann. Sci. Nat. s^r. 2, XIII. 315 (non Linnaeus) 



(1840). — Spach, Hist. Veg. XI. 47 (pro parte) (1842). 

 Morus alba, var. latifolia Bureau in Do Candolle, Prodr. XVII. 244 (pro 



parte) (1873). 



According to Perrottet and Spach this represents the true M. indica of Linnaeus, 

 but, as I have shown on p. 294, this is a mistake. Poiret's type came from the is- 

 land of Bourbon, where, according to Perrottet (1840), " le Morus indica ou australis 

 est sauvage et cultive." In his first description of M. intermedia, Perrottet says 

 that the ovary is " termine par deux stigniates sessiles," and his rather bad plate 

 does not show a distinct style at the apex of the ovary. But in 1840 Perrottet 

 states that the stigma "est toujours pedicell6, bipartite, recourb6 en crosse"; 

 and he says that his M. intermedia " 6tait ^videmment le M. indica de Linn6, de 

 Roxburgh et des auteurs en general." Without having seen Poiret's and Perrottet's 

 types I am not able to decide whether M. australis sensu Perrottet represents a 

 distinct species or is a variety of M. alba Linnaeus or a mixture of forms belonging 

 to different species. 



BROUSSONETIA L'H^r. 



Broussonetia papyrifera L'Heritier in Ventenat, Tahl Regn. Veg. 

 III. 547 (1799). — Loiseleur-Deslongchamps in Nouv. Duhamel, II. 

 26, t. 7 (circa 1804). — Sims in Bot. Mag. L. t. 2358 (1823). — An- 

 drews, Bot. J?epos. VII.t.488 (1807). — Blume, Bijdr. X. 487 (1825). — 

 Siebold in Verh. Bat. Gemot. XII. 28 (S^jn. PI. Oecon. Jap.) (1830). — 

 Loudon, Arh. Brit. III. 1361 (1838). —Siebold & Zuccarini in 

 Ahh. Akad. Miinch. IV. Abt. 3, 220 (Fl Jap. Fam. Nat. II. 96) 

 (1846). — Blume, Mus. Bot. Lugd.-Bat. II. 85 (1852). — Seringe, 

 Descr. Cult. Muriers, 236, Atl. 11, t. 26 (1855). — Miquel in Ann. 

 Mus. Lugd.-Bat. II. 198 (1865); Prol. Fl. Jap. 130 (1865). — K. 

 Koch, Dendr. II. pt. 1, 439 (1872). — Bureau in De Candolle, Prodr. 

 XVII. 224 (1873). — Franchet & Savatier, Enum. PI. Jap. I. 433 

 (1875). — Franchet in Nouv. Arch. Mus. Paris, s^r. 2, VII. 79 (PI. 

 David. I. 269) (1884). — Hooker f., Fl. Brit. Ind. V. 490 (1888).— 

 Dippel, Handb. Laubholzk. II. 16 (1892). — Koehne, Deutsche Dendr. 

 139 (1893). — Hemsley in Jour. Linn. Soc. XXVI. 455 (1894).— 

 Mouillefert, Traite Arh. & Arhriss. II. 1217 (1898). — E. Pritzel in 

 Bot. Jahrb. XXIX. 298 (1900). — Shirasawa, Icon. Ess. For. Jap. 

 I. t. 38 (1900).— Schneider, Dendr.Winterstud. 100, fig. 112 i-o (1903); 

 III. Handb. Laubholzk. I. 241, fig. 151 e-g, 155 a-c, g-m, 156 i-o 

 (1904). — Matsumura & Hayata in Jour. Coll. Sci. Tokyo, XXII. 373 

 (Enum. PL Formos.) (1906). — Nakai in Jour. Coll. Sci. Tokyo, 

 XXXI. 193 {Fl. Kor. II.) (1911). — Ascherson & Graebner, Syn. Mit- 



