530 JOURNAL, BOMBAY NATURAL HISTORY SOCIETY, Vol. X. 



says : " Tuber alter o annofolium-solitarium, altero cataphylla atque pedun- 

 culum emittens/' Saiiramatum guttatum and perhaps some other Aroidece have 

 the same life-history. 



The present article is written to correct some of the errors which are 

 observed in the previous communication above alluded to. When a short 

 paper on Psilotus was read here by a member about two years ago, I gave 

 to Mr. Phipson a note, pointing out a mistake which had been made by the 

 author. This note was lost or forgotten, and the paper on Psilotus was 

 printed without any correction. This was left to be done by Dr. Prain 

 of Calcutta whose communication on the subject was printed in a subsequent 

 number of our Journal. 



Eegarding the habitat of Sauramatum above alluded to, it is stated in 

 Hooker's Flora of British India, vol. vi, pages 508, 509, that "Sauramatum 

 guttatum is confined to North-West India, except Stocks' specimens should 

 prove to be from the Concan, of which there is no evidence," This is an error 

 from oversight or f orgetf ulness. 



In the Botanical Magazine there is a drawing ( 4465 ) taken from the plant 

 growing in Thana ; and in the letter-press we find the following notes : — 

 "A very remarkable plant, native of the East Indies, where it is probably 

 not uncommon. Dr. W^allich detected it in Nepal, and Blume in Java. Eoots 

 of our plants were sent to us by our friend Mr, Law, Thana, Bombay, in 1848^ 

 and they flowered in the stove in the spring of the following year." These 

 notes are signed W. S. H. (probably the father of ISir Joseph Hooker). And 

 at the end of the letter-press there is an article on the cultivation of this 

 plant signed " J. S.," which runs thus : " A tuberous rooted herbaceous plants 

 native of Bombay and other parts of India." 



REPLY TO THE FOREGOING NOTE, 

 « 



To begin with, I ask, whose description is the above note intended to cor- 

 rect ? My description of Pythonium wallichianum, Kunth, given in a former 

 number of this Journal, is materially correct. Additions will improve it, for 

 I admit there may be omissions, even in other parts than those marked by 

 me with a query. But additions are not corrections. 



Dr. Lisboa says that my inflorescence is correct ; but that my hat belongs 

 to Sauromatum guttatum, and that the name I have adopted — namely, 

 Pytlwnmm wallichianum — belongs to a third plant. To this my reply is that 

 the inflorescence, leaf, and name belong to one and the same plant. The 

 inflorescence and leaf were painted at different times during the same year 

 by Mr. Isnac Benjamin, as seasonal changes in the growth of the bulb requir- 

 ed, so far back as 1886, under my eye. If Dr. Lisboa will favour my 

 Thana garden with even a hurried visit, before the end of this rainy season, 



