\ 



B EDUCTIONS OF MALATAS SPECIES. 



231 



intermediate forms necessary to support the decisive reductions indicated in the ri-ht-batid 

 column have in few cases yet been reported. 



The account of the genus by Dr. Miquel in Flor. Ind. Bat ii, 985-9, is somewhat 

 unsa hsfactory > But reference to it as regards Malayan species is absolutely essential, 

 and to facilitate this a tabular view of its synonymy is presented. 



J 



fr 



best 



»rri' ]\vn\M that plainly do not belong 

 ie ]K*itioB of which is doubtful. These 



I ins is mmmhra, f( 



TT 



This 



Phlomis rugosa Benth. in Wall. Cat. n. 20(17 (1828), PI. As. Bar. i, 63 (1880), Lab. Gen A Bp 684(1834) 



et DC. Trodr. xii, 546 (1818) ; Walp., Bep, i.i, 8M) (1845) , Hi ok. f., Flor. Bnt. Ind r. LWh 



Gomphostemma membra n if oli urn Miq., Flor. Ind. Bat. ii, 988 (1888). 

 Area geogr. Himalaya; Sikkim, Hooter! Clarke! Kvrz! Fi*f/ Assam ; MWuni, 'JrtftVA .' Khasia, 7 ,//,>/, 



-ZToofor ^ Thomson! Clarke! Mann! Mala\a; JVrak, $c 0r t<c)nni! KunstUr ! Java, "-rttrfjf 



Philippines, Tidal n. 3418! 



is an aberrant Phlomis, and the specific name (as Sir J. D. Hoolo r i.r. has remarked) is inappropriate 

 Besides being so unlike other Phlomides in general appearance, it diflVr<? from most ot r species of fin ^enuf in the* 

 posterior filaments being inappendiculate. Dr. Miquel's description is remarkably inadequate and notices inither the 

 divaricate anthers, the glabrous filaments, nor the annulate corolla — tin re characters exhibited by no species of ihcmius 

 in which he has placed the plant. 



After Benth am' s Phlomis rugosa we may consider G. macro}>hyllum'b>\\<\^ of *rhiel Iher ?ire specimens at Calcutta. 

 It is a plant undoubtedly congeneric with Phlomis ntgosa, differing only in having the calyx rather longer and 

 distinctly incurved, the corolla tube included, the lips shorter (the lateral lobes of the lower lip are besi s aeute 

 instead of obtuse), the galea externally much more densely tomentose, and the anterior |tyh lobe longer. In habit 

 the two species agree exactly and their nutlets are not distinguishable. If therefore th< 

 to be referred to Phlomis f this also must be ; its synonymy and distribution arc then as follows : 





preced 



Phlomis oblongifolia.— Leonurus oblongifoliits Bhime, Bijdf. 828 (1*2(5); I nth., Lab. ( n . £ Sp. 55t 



(1833) et DC. Prodr. xii, 508 (18J8) ; Walp., Bep. iii, 812 (1815).— Gom V husternma macrophy/lum Miq. f 



Flor. Ind. Bnt. ii, 988 (1856). 

 Area geogr. Malaya; Java, Blume! K\ 



We 



Minn el 



expressly admits that he had only seen an imperfect specimen, but states that as regards habit it approaches hi 



ifolium; i.e., Phlomis rugosa Sth. 



N 



too brief, made it congeneric with 



Be 



Umgifoliv$ 9 and 



Phlomis rugosa. If therefore Blume is right in making this congeneric with his l.eonurn* a 

 same time Bentham's plant is correctly placed in the genus Phlomis. this also is a Phlomis. Blume, it should 1* 

 noted, did not consider it related to Gomphostemma, a genus which he did Ml recognise sin , like Roxburgh, he 

 treated the species of it that he knew as Prasia. The synonymy and area of this plant 



Phlomis javanica— Leonurus javanicus Blume, Bijdr. 828 (1^26); Benth., Lab. Gen. & p. 55 

 DC. Prodr. xii, 602 (1848); Walp., Kep. iii, 812 (1845). 



987 



(1856). 



Malaya 



/ 



was 



and was by him made the type of a new Labiate genus Jnthocoma in 1846. In the absence cf specimens it is 

 only possible to discuss the descriptions that have been given cf the plant. The original account has not been a essible 

 to me, but Hasskari's description (1847), which seems, judging from his account of the nutlets, to have been made from 

 a specimen, has been accessible, and is tolerably full. AH references to the plant subseq 

 had to be made without seeing specimens. Hasskarl suggests (Flora xxx, 596) that this maj 



nent to Hasskarrs have 

 be the tame as Zollinger 



and Moritzi's Gomphostemma dichotomum (Verzeichn. 64) ; this suggestion A. de Candnlle adopts in an ed 



(Prodr. xii, pp. 552 et 7C0). De Candolle says that neither Zollinger's generi 



a 



points out (Flor. 



case 



formi 



{sphalmate tandum] dilatato (nee ut in reliquis Gomphostemmatis supra medium inflato)" is clearly a meml r of the 



division 



from Jnthocoma fl< 



the calyx and quite glabrous within as well as in having normally only one nutlet developed. Then Bentham, who has 



