﻿636 MR 



BENTHAM ON THE MIMOSEiE. ^Species exchm^ 



Mimosa ft 



Gleditschice sp. ex char. 



Mimosa stellata, Lour. Fl. Cochinch. 651 {Acacia tawifolia, Willd. Spec. iv. 1050 ; Mimosa taxifolia, Poir. 

 Diet. Siippl. i. 59 ; Mimosa ternata, Pers. Syn. 261), and M. sinuata, Lour. 1. c. 653, from Cochinchina, are 

 evidently, from Loureiro's descriptions, not Leguminous plants ; but I am unable to guess at their real 



affinities. 



bauhiniafolia 



Mimosa Kantuffa, DC. Prod. ii. 4<^l, = Pterolobium lacerans, Br. 

 Mimosa crocea, M. laxa, M. Musa, M. Pacoba, M. pulchra, andilf, 

 all species of Sivartzia. 



,,„ „^..^„„, Dennst. Schluss. Hort. Malab. l5,=Ailantus malabaricns 



dolabriformis , Wendl. Comm. Acac. 5o,=Daviesia incrassata, Sw. 



Bancroft 



by 



Casalpinia bijuga, Sw. 



Millet tia ferru 



i. 4A\, = Peltophorum ft 

 Nov. Gen. et Sp. iii. 7i 



Macrolobium 



Nomina delenda. 



Supposed species, either resulting from the confusion of synonyms, or undescribed, or 

 so described as not to be henceforth identified, although all with very little doubt 

 founded on species already described under other names. 



A. Compound species. 



Mimosa vaga, Linn. Spec. 1503 [Acacia vaga^ Willd. Spec, iv, 1063) ^ was originally characterized in 

 Hort. Cliff. 209^ from Albizzia Lebhek^ to which was added the Brazilian Guaibi-pocaca-biba^ which^ from 

 Piso's rude figure, copied by Marcgrave^ comes nearest to Piihecolobium Saman. This, however, is 

 scarcely Brazilian ; and Breynius^s plate 15, quoted more doubtfully by Linnaeus, is evidently Piihecolobium 

 Auaremotemo. 



Mimosa Ouyrarema, AubL PL Gui/946 [Acacia Ouyrarema^ DC. Prod. ii. 469), made up of references 

 belonging to Pithecolobium fiUcifolium , and of a Cayenne plant undescribed, but represented among 

 Aublet's by a leaf wliich may be that of Pithecolobium adiantifolium or some allied species. De Candolle^s 

 character is taken from a leaf which may or may not be taken from tlie same species. 



Mimosa Sinemariensis, AubL PL Gui. 945, made up of references belonging to Inga Feuillei and of 

 ^ome undescribed plant from Cayenne (where Inga Feuillei is unknown), of which no evidence exists. 

 G. Bon, Gen. Syst. ii. 388, still further confuses his Inga sinemariensis by mixing it up with what appears 

 to be /. laurina. 



B. Species which there is ecery reason to believe are included amongst those above 

 described^ but ofiohich I have seen no authentic specimens, and which are so imperfectly 

 described as to render identification^ generic or sjpecific, otherwise impossible. 



r 



Prosopis elegansy Spreng. Syst. Cur, Post. 165, from Brazil, Sello, may be Piptadenia rigida or 



>erma 



Mimosa brevifoUa and 3f . 

 )m South America, with 



admit 



specime 



Willdeno 



to 



guess 



M 



