BY W. P. BLAlvELY. 



matically worked, and also when a more intimate knowledge is attained of the 

 already known genei-a and species. 



Of the 25 genera represented under Engler's classification, only seven are 

 represented in Australia, namely:— Nuytsia R. Br., Gaiadendron G. Don, Phry- 

 gilanthus Eiclil., Loranthm L., NototMxos Oliver, Viscum L. and Korthalsella 

 van Tiegh. 



Nuytsia is the only genus strictly Australian. 



Gaiadendron and Phrygilanthus are found in Brazil and Chili; the latter is 

 also endemic to the Philippines. NototMxos is indigenous to Ceylon, Pliilippine 

 Islands and New Guinea, while Lorantlms and Viscum are very widely distributed 

 over the temperate and tropical zones. KortJialsella appears to be limited to 

 India, Japan, -Java, New Zealand, Lord Howe and Norfolk Islands, and also to 

 some of the larger islands of the Pacific. 



Nwjtsia is confined to Western Australia; Gaiadendron to New South Wales; 

 4 species of Phrygilanthus are endemic to New South Wales and Queensland, 

 and two species extend to Victoria. Loranthus is dispersed as follows: — Victoria 

 9 species. South Australia 9, Northern Territory 15, New South Wales 20, Wes- 

 tern Australia 23, and Queensland 28 species. L. Exocarpi, L. Miquelii, L. 

 Preissii and L. Quandang are the only species disseminated over the whole of 

 Australia. Korthalsella is represented by 2 species each in Queensland and Nor- 

 folk Island respectively, and 1 species each in New South Wales and Lord Howe 

 Island. Notothixos has 3 representatives in New South Wales and 4 in Queens- 

 land. Three species of Viscum are also endemic to the latter State, while New 

 South Wales and Westei-n Australia have each a single species. 



Tlie genus Elytranthe Bhime, a native of Java and India, according to Eng- 

 ler, embraces some of the Australian species of the sub-genus Dendrophthoe. 

 In this respect I cannot follow Engler, as they appear to me to have more of 

 the characters of Dendrophthoe than Elytranthe, consequently the latter genus is 

 excluded. 



There has been much confusion in the genus owing to the lack of knowledge 

 on the part of collectors. Many collectors have committed the error of mixing 

 what they probably thought were forms of the same species, but in reality they 

 were different. Many so-called types are unreliable, owing to mixed material. 



We have examples of this on the type sheet of L. Quandang Lindl., and in 

 many of Dr. Leichhardt's specimens. Mistakes have also arisen through imper- 

 fect material, as in the ease quoted by Bentham when referring to a specimen 

 from the Howick Group, thought by him to be referable to L. odontocalyx, which 

 afterwards proved to be quite a different species. No. 18. The ordinary layman 

 is apt to regard all the Loranthus he sees under more favourable circumstances 

 than those which suiTounded the early collectors, as belonging to the same 

 species. When experienced persons make mistakes concerning them, there is 

 little wonder that others are sometimes in error, and their information should on 

 all occasions, imless backed up by actual specimens, be interpreted with the 

 gi-eatest caution. 



It so happens that, with a large quantity of material which appears to be 

 all the same, there is often a mixture of other species. The distribution of this 

 material has, in some instances, been left to unqualified persons, consequently 

 what is sent out as purporting to be a specimen of the type is something totally 

 different. 



