86 PRAEGER—SOME ASIATIC SEDUMS. 
- (3) Himalaya: Chongra, one day N.W. of Chumbi. -7 July 
_ 1878. Coll. Dungboo. Flowers white or red. 
S. Leblancae, Hamet. 
(1) Yunnan: Sedum annuel. FI. jaunes. Rochers des col- 
lines 4 Tong-tch’ouan, alt. 2550 m. Novembre. E. E. Maire. 
Nos. 228/1914, 231/1914. 
(2) W. Szechuan—ro.08. E. H. Wilson, No. 2499. (A 
sheet of the same gathering is in the Kew Herbarium’. 
S. Leveilleanum, Hamet. (Plate clxxii, 1). 
In describing this remarkable Sedum (Bull. Soc. Bot. France, 
lv (1908), 712), which comes from the Island of Quelpaert (Faurie 
Nos. 136, 623, 1795, 1500-1700 métres) M. Hamet linked it with 
S. primuloides, Franch. from Yunnan and S. pachyclados, Aitch. 
and Hemsl. from Tibet. I have endeavoured to show (Trans. 
Bot. Soc. Edinb. xxvii (1917), 107), that these three species be- 
long to a primitive group of the section Rhodiola, and have 
placed them in a new series Primuloides of that large section of 
Sedum. ‘The peculiar characters which link the species of this 
group with the typical Rhodiolas, from which they differ much 
in appearance, are the thickened rhizome bearing at its summit 
a tuft of leaves with broad clasping bases (the scales of the more 
typical Rhodiolas), from the axils of which spring the leafy 
flowering-stems. S. pachyclados has been figured already (Aitch- 
ison and Hemsley, Journ. Linn. Soc. Bot. xix, pl. 10) also 
S. primuloides and S. Praegerianum (Praeger, I.c.) and S. Bal- 
fourt (supra v, pl. Ixxxv). In the present paper a new mem-- 
ber of the group, S. Barnesianum, is figured. I am glad to be 
able to add a figure of S. Leveilleanum. Two good sheets of 
the plant are in the British Museum (Faurie Nos. 623 and 1795), 
labelled in Hamet’s writing, by a strange inadvertence, S. sik- 
okianum, Hamet (sic!); the figure is taken from a «Sree on 
the latter sheet, by kind permission of Dr Rendle. 
Writing to me in 1919, M. Hamet put forward a different view 
as to the affinities of S. Leveilleanum. “Le S. Leveilleanum,’’ 
he says, “‘contrairement a mon opinion primitive, ne peut étre 
rapproché des S. primuloides et pachyclados. Il trouve sa place 
au voisinage du S. spinosum.’”’ It is difficult to find grounds 
for this opinion. “Pending publication of the reasons for it, dis- 
cussion is premature, but the case for M. Hamet’s origina 
opinion, in which I fully concur, is undoubtedly strengthened 
by the diseovery of the allied S. Barnesianum, described on a 
preceding page. 
