314 WILSON EXPEDITION TO CHINA 



investigation to decide if the flowers of these forms afford any good characters, 

 but with the material before me I am inchned to beUeve that the Japanese plant 

 represents only a variety of D. longifolia. 



Debregeasia edulis Weddell in Arch. Mus. Paris, IX. 462 (1856); in De Can- 

 dolle, Prodr. XVI. pt. 1, 235" (1869). — Maximowicz in Bull. Acad. Sci. St. 

 Petersbourg, XXII. 256 (1876); in Mel. Biol. IX. 649 (1877). — ?Hance in Jour. 

 Bot. XX. 38 (1882). — Franchet & Savatier, Enum. PI. Jap. I. 442 (1875).— 

 Wright in Jour. Linn. Soc. XXVI. 492 (pro parte) (1894). — Matsumura & 

 Hayata in Jour. Coll. Sci. Tokyo, XXII. 390 (Enum. PI. Formos.) (1906).— 

 Matsumura, Ind. PI. Jap. II. pt. 2, 43 (1912). — Rehder in Bailey, Stand. Cycl. 

 Hort. II. 973 (1914). 



Morocarpus edulis Siebold & Zuccarini in Ahh. Akad. Munch. IV. pt. 3, 218 



{Fl. Jap. Fam. Nat. II. 94) (1846), exclud. planta cf. — Blume, Mus. Bot. 



Lugd.-Bat. II. 155, t. 16* (1855). — Miquel in Ann. Mus. Lugd.-Bat. III. 



130 (1867); Prol. Fl. Jap. 294 (1867). 

 Missiessya parvifolia Weddell in Ann. Sci. Nat. b6t. 4, I. 195 (1854), fide 



Weddell. 



JAPAN. Hondo: prov. Musashi, Tokyo, Botanic Garden, June 18, 1871 (ex 

 Herb. Univ. Tokyo). 



In the typical D. edulis the branchlets are described by Weddell as " pube 

 brevi adpressa vestitis," as it is the case in the specimen before me. See my 

 remarks above. 



