878 ON PTEROCARYA STENOPTERA. 
mu 
much widened at the base, and the ribs are more conspicuous an 
projecting. It is 4-celled at the base, but at the middle the cells 
are confluent into a single one, of a wide horse-s e in the 
transverse section ; and it resembles that of Pt. rhovfolia (as described 
by Maximowicz) in being destitute of the lacune found in Pt. 
caucasica.t The wings are of equal size, attached from the base 
t - 
rounded at the apex. Their nervation is rather less conspicuous than 
in caucasica, chiefly because the wing is thicker in texture ; and 
the veins are very much closer, and either simple, or with one or two 
parallel ramifications. The catkins are solitary, 14 to 3 inches long, 
and many-flowe e structure of thes is somewhat 
remarkable. Each consists of a linear flattened receptacle, about a line 
da half in le 
ngth, bearing, at a short distance from its insertion, on 
the posterior surface, 10—12 stamens, with 
short ents, 
disposed in three or four rows these readily ‘become detached, 
leaving small blackish scars ere are no perigone-lobes along the 
sides of this disc, but at: it ty extremity are three small oblong 
free phylla, two lateral and on 
friend Dr. Thwaites, to whom I sent some catkins, was ‘‘ dispos 
to consider each anther to Tepresent a flower, and the body termi- 
* The terms anticous and posticous have beén so confused (cfr. Germain de 
St. Pierre, Nouv, Dict, de Bot., 67) that I have preferred usin these, which I 
understand in the sense of M. Casimir de Candolle (Théorie Has la Feuille, 4), 
%2., posterior as situated nearest to, anterior furthest from the axis, 
_ + On this difference, Maximowicz observes :—“Tacunm periphericw coccm * 
in planta caucasica vulgo distinctissime, interdum eti obsolete occurrunt, 
ita ut character e lacunis petitus non’ tam ‘gravis videatur ut volunt paledén- 
- tologi.” (Op. laud, 639.) 
