﻿A 



646 



MR. G. BENTHAM ON THE MIMOSEiE 



2199 Acacia Coulteri. 



2227 Leucsena pulverulenta. 



2235 Mimosa malacophylla glabra 



2251 Mimosa M. raonaucistrse aff. 



2262 Acacia flexicaulis, 



2288 Leucsena pulverulenta. 



2302 Mimosa 



Acacia farnesiana. 



2346 Acacia flexicaulis. 



2370 Pithecolobium brevifolium 



Desmanthus depressus. 



2510 Acacia filicina. 



2513 Schrankia acnleata. 



3002 Mimosa strigillosa. 



3144 Lysiloma desmostachya. 



3145^ Mimosa M. monancistrjo aff. 



3 146 Mimosa Borlandieri. 



3147 Pithecolobium albicans. 



3148 Acacia micrantba. 



3149 Acacia AVrightii, 



3150 Acacia Wrightii. 



3151 Acacia filicina, . 



i> 



ADDENDA. 



1. POSSIL MlMOSE^. 



In the prefatory matter to the present paper I have made no reference to any fossil 

 remains of Mimosese ; for at the time of drawing it up I had no ready means of ascer- 

 taining what evidence on the suhject had heen supplied by palseontologists, and I had 

 not yet heard from Professor Schimper, who had kindly promised to communicate with 

 me on the suhject. Since, however, the early sheets of this paper were printed oflp, the 

 third volume of his magnificent work on Vegetable Palaeontology has reached us ; and in 

 it I find that a number of supposed fossil Mimosese from the Central-European Tertiary 



described and figured, and referred severally to the genera Frosopis, Inga, Etitada, 



Mimosa, and Acacia 



The great majority of the species so determined are founded 



impressions of leaves only ; and these I pass entirely over ; for although withoiit collateral 



it is impossible to deny that they may belong to the g 



Question, it 



equally impossible to affirm that they do so belong ; for none of them show forms or 



I thus see no reason to con- 



venation exclusively characteristic of any of these g 



elude on this evidence that any Inga, Mimosa, or Fhyllodineous Acacia was 



any part 



of the Tertiary period an inhabitant of that part of Europe, when other evidence would 

 tend to an opposite conclusion. With regard to Frosopis, the presumption that it might 

 have been there is to my mind neither confirmed nor refuted by the fossil impressions 



described as Frosopis leaflets 



On the other hand, those fruits of which 



exceUent impressions are figured by Schimper, point to species of Acac 



so many 



, . • .1 . XI „ - -' Mitada, and 



perhaps ^^6^^.^«, very similar to those now found in Africa-a case analogous to that of 



the Fodogomum. of which specimens so very perfect have been preserved as to enable us 

 satisfactorily to identify it as closely aUied to some African Csesalpineous genera not yet 

 quite extinct. ^ o j 



Descendi n g to particulars, the fruits figured by Schimper, plate cvi. figs. 4, 5. 6, 7, 12 

 and 13, all referred t^ Acacia are probably eorreetly determined, and represent species 

 Of the groups Gummifem and Vulgares, both of which arp nf fi.^ 5 i 1^4. 



^•n A f.-.. PI. 4, indeed, if the leaves of figs. 1 1 2 Zt b^ '17' ' f . 



J n^.t^.T... .^ *!,. ^„ ,,__. 2,, . '^""^v belong to it, must be very 



to the A. Catechu of the present day. The pods, fi 



20 and 21, are determined 



Mimos(B ; but if I had had such pods shown to me in a fresh stntp T .1 n i, , i 



♦v.« „-*i..„^ i,„„:*„i^.._.. X. . . -o. ,^^ . ^ ^^^^^ state, I should have referred 



from the United States, and ^-Jl tfatlftr v^ '^^T. 1 r' '"t'"'' 



Lcvv very narrow-fruited Gummiferous 



them without hesitation to Ac 



