1391.] D. Prain — Ttvo additional species of Glyptopetalum. 207 



referred by Kurz in this Journal (vol. xlv, [1876], pt. 2, p. 123) to 

 Euonymus javaiiicus Blume.* 



As it is necessary to formally remove the plant from, the genus to 

 which it has hitherto been referredf the opportunity has been taken of 

 providing a full description ; at the same time a description is given of 

 a second species collected — in fruit — in the Mishmi Mts. by Griffith ; a 

 synopsis of all the species now known precedes these descriptions. 



In the four species of which the fruit is known, the dorsal raphe 

 does not terminate at the organic base of the seed but there divides into 

 3-4 laciniate segments of the same appearance and consistence as the 

 raphe itself ; from the raphe they only differ in being slightly branched 

 and in not quite reaching the hilum. They form a closely adherent 



* No opinion can be expressed here regarding the Novara expedition specimens ; 

 no example of E. javanicus has hitherto been obtained in the Nicobars by Calcutta 

 collectors. 



t It is ti'ue that Kurz did not think Glyptopetalum Thw. generically separable 

 from Euonymus Linn, for in this Journal (vol. xliv, [1875], pt. 2, p. 259) he 

 formally relegates it to Euonymus (as a section) and in the Forest Flora of British 

 Burma (vol. i, [1877], p. 249) he does not accord Glyptopetalum even sectional rank. 

 It must also be pointed out that Bentham and Hooker had already {Gen. PI. i, [1862], 

 p. 361) pointed out how slight are the characters — the principal one being the 

 solitary pendulous ovules — that separate Glyptopetalum from Euonymus ; Baillon 

 also {Rist. des Flantes, vi, [1875], p. 1, footnote) takes the same view as Kurz. If 

 therefore the views of Kurz and Baillon ultimately prevail this plant will again be 

 known as Euonymus calocarpus Kurz. 



But while this is the case it will be seen on referring to the place of its publica- 

 tion that Kurz did not recognise in this species an example of his own section 

 Glyptopetalum. In the Flora of British Burma too the generic description of 

 Euonymus given by Kurz implies that the cells of the ovary are at least 2-ovuled — 

 an implication opposed to his own statement (J. A. S. B. xliv, pt. 2, 159) as regards 

 Glyptopetalum sclerocarpuin and, as regards the species under review, incorrect. 

 Kurz's views regarding the generic position of Glyptopetalum may therefore, I think, 

 be ignored, and Baillon's authority can hardly be quoted in Kurz's support since that 

 author takes so comprehensive a view of Euonymus that he is prejiared to merge in 

 it not merely Glyptopetalum Thw. but also Lophopetalum Wight, a step which Kurz has 

 nowhere proposed. Moreover the genus Glyptopetalum, as founded by Thwaites 

 {Hook., Jour. Bot. viii, [1856], p. 267), is sustained by Bentham and Hooker (Gen. 

 Fl. i, [1862], p. 361), by Hooker and Thwaites (Einom. PI. Zeylan. [1864], p. 73), by 

 BeMome [Flor. Sylvat.i, [1874], 1. 102), by Lawson {Flor. Brit. Ind. i, [1875], p. 612), 

 by Trimen {Oat. Ceylon Tl. [1885], p. 18) and by Durand {Index Gen. Phaner. [1888], 

 p. 66) ; considering too the large number of species of Euonymus proper already 

 described and the ease with which species of Glyptopetalum are distinguished from 

 these, it appears inadvisable at present to follow Kurz and Baillon in suppressing 

 the latter genus. The present retention of Gli/ptopetalum moreover disturbs the 

 synonymy of only one species instead of changing that of several. 



