1903.] D. Fraiii' — Some Additional ScropLulariuese. }5 



Some confusion has grown up regarding the identity and the distribution as 

 well as the synonymy of Linclenbergia philippinensis and Lindenbergia macrostachya ; 

 this requires to be definitely settled, if for no other reason than that, as the Flora 

 of British India truly says, the one may prove only a variety of the other. 



The species Lindenbergia pi i Hipp in en si a was first described as such in DC. Prodr, 

 x. 377 (1846), the basis of the species being Stemodia philippinensis Cham. & 

 Schlecht. Linnea iii. 5. (1828), and the Philippines being then its only known 

 locality. Hooker in Flor. Brit. Ind. iv. 261, also describes the species but gives it as 

 occurring in Chittagoug, Burma, Pegu, Tenasserim, and as extending to China and 

 the Philippines. 



The species Lindenbergia macrostachya, which is admitted by Bentham, as well 

 as by Hooker, to be very nearly related to L. philippinensis, was first described by 

 Bentham in Scroph. Ind. 22 (1835), and is again described in the Prodromus x. 376. 

 It is thus, as a Lindenbergia at all events, older than L. philippinensis. But, since 

 the basis of L. macrostachya is Bentham's own Stemodia macrostachya in Wall. Cat. 

 3925 (1829), the epithet philippinensis has priority over the epithet macrostachya. 

 Bentham gives the distribution of L. macrostachya as from the N.-W. Himalaya as 

 far as to Martaban and Moulmein. This, however, he only manages to do by includ- 

 ing in the species his own Adenosma cuspidatum in Wall. Cat. 3852 (1829) which is 

 a Burmese plant. Hooker does not put the distribution in this way. He says that 

 L. macrostachya occurs in the N.-W. Himalaya and in Martaban ; a somewhat differ- 

 ent statement from Bentham's. But it seems clear, from the way in which the citations 

 are made, that the species is considered Burmese solely on the strength of Wall. Cat. 

 3852. The further distribution Siam is clearly on the strength of Lindenbergia 

 siamensis Miq. in Herb. ; that of China is probably on the strength of specimens 

 from China named Lindenbergia macrostachya by Hance and by Maximowiz. 



The only tangible character in the various diagnoses of these two species is 

 that the style in Lindenbergia macrostachya is glabrous, whereas in L. philippensis it is 

 hirsute at the base. The character of glabrous and pubescent leaves is unreliable ; 

 Hance's " L. macrostachya," for example, is undoubtedly L. philippinensis with nearly 

 glabrous leaves ; on the other hand Griffith and King have both collected in North- 

 West India examples of undoubted L. macrostachya with leaves as pubescent as 

 those of L. philippinensis. 



As a rule the calyx is distinctive but even at best the difference does not 

 amount to much and there are some Burmese examples of L philippinensis, i.e., 

 of the plant with a very hairy base to the style, that have calyx-teeth quite like those 

 of L. macrostachya which always has a glabrous style. The corolla of L. macro- 

 stachya is smaller than that of L. philippinensis, but the character, being a relative 

 one. is hardly sufficient for absolate diagnosis, and the corolla of L. philippinensis 

 itself varies too much in size to make the character of more than subsidiary value. 



By the only crucial character, "style hairy at the base," Adenosma cuspidatum 

 Benth. is certainly Lindenbergia philippinensis ! So also is " L. siamensis Miq." 

 which is only L. siame?isis Teijsm. & Binn., of which I have seen an authentic 

 example and of which there is a drawing made from the living plant in the Calcutta 

 Herbarium. By this test too the Lindenbergia macrostachya, from China, of Hance 

 and Maximowicz, is L. philippinensis. 



In short Lindenbergia macrostachya is a species strictly confined to Northern 

 India ; L. philippinensis is a species that extends from Central China, throughout 

 the whole of Indo-China from the Brahmaputra river eastward to Upper Tenasserim 



