ON SOME QUESTIONS OF BOTANICAL NOMENCLATURE, 357 
by tinarerge) specimens, ind I append the localities where they were 
gat 
1. Lysimachia (Ephemerum, Sethe barystachys, Bl.—Ta lien 
). 
wan (Swinhoe), Peking ( ms, Bretschneider, allique). Li 
Tao rere Chi fu (Forb \ 
(Ephemerum retlnere gi “candida, Lindl. (= L. samolina, 
Hance) eine Cantone 
3. L. (Ephemerum, Birnardins) Fortunet, Maxim.—Juxta Can- 
tonem (Parry, Sampson). 
- (Ephemerum, Coxia) decurrens, G. Forst.* (= L. multiflora, 
Wall., L. consobrina, Hance). —Formosa (Oldham). Prov. Bidton tals 
(Sampson. 
. L. (Nummularia) Christine, Hance. Mago (Swinhoe). 
; L. (Lubinia) Fenum-grecum, Hance.—Kwangsi. 
i. de rime pstom spathulata, Klatt.—Ta lien wan (Swinhoe). Amoy 
am npso 
8. e Cill port japonica, Thunb.—Secus fl. Lien chau. prov. 
vie Feb., 1877. (T. L. Bullock 
ead, ( Citéoina a@) grammica, Hance. ee rei 
=: L. (Cilicina) alpestris, Champ.—Hong 
11. L. (Cilieina) cuspidata, Bl{~— Chi fa ‘when, Stuhl- 
ma 
™ L. (Cilicina) Alfredi, Hance.—Fuchau 
. (Apochorts) pentapetala, Bunge.—Ts lien wan enue 
Pe kin illiams aliique). Although Apochoris is 
evidently with hesitation, by Dr. eal’: in the ‘‘ Genera,” it seems fd 
me that the great differences as regards stamens in the various species 
of Lysimachia, some with the filaments quite free, others having them 
united into a very short ring, whilst in others again they are conjoined 
similar d 
habit it is extremely like be candida, sia Il do not think should be 
separated genert 
I have referred the above species to the — established by 
Klatt, in his monograph of the genus; but these need- 
lessly multiplied, and rather loosely de: 
ON SOME SHREDS OF BOTANICAL NOMENCLATURE. 
. Bart, F.B.S. 
Assence from ‘Kicieal “iad me from seeing at the time the 
letter from M. Alphonse de Candolle published in your August 
number (p. 242), with the editorial remarks appended to it, ind the 
* See Ferd. v. Mueller, roan to a hoes ta Fd New Hebrides, 17. 
+ By this I mean the plant described and figured by Klatt, na however, 
Miquel declares Ann. mus. bot. Lugd.-Bat., iv., 144) to be “toto czlo 
diversa,’”’ from Blume’s species, 
