196 THE JOURNAL OF BOTANY 
by an apica al pore. _ am as though J J ussieu had included a 
rai species in enophorus, but this is a matter which 
only be sotted By ord sas of the types in the Paris 
Her rium 
The re maining described species of Acridocarpus ae to have 
been rightly referred to the genus. ‘Three of them—d. Cava- 
nillesti, A. guineensis, longifolius—have been ae mis 
nd : avanillesii is almost certainly a variety or 
form of 4. plagio iopterus. A specimen in the British Museum, 
collected by Smeathman in rag a was identified by Plan- 
chon as d. Cavanillesii, and i med in his handwriting A. 
plagiopterus var. Cavanillesti. The identiiation and reduction were, 
however, never published. The specimen has the characteristic 
bracts and bracteoles of 4. plagiopterus, whidh, outside that species, 
oceur only in A. macrocalyx and A. Hirundo (see below). It agrees 
searecity” not pets fertile, is Sieh more penne a in many 
of the species; the perfect development of all three carpels cannot 
be accounted a specific character, for we find in at least one species, 
A, exce : 8411 in H i 
A. excelsus Juss. (Hildebrandt, No 1 in Herb. Kew.), either one, 
two, or thre devel in the same infructesc 
tated above, 4. peace was founded, ji 
ne 
fi rial 
sent to Jussieu by Vahl; and, secondly, on Malpighia aiternifolia 
Schum. et Thonn. 
From a careful study of Schumacher’s diagnosis and Thonning’s 
deseription of Malpighia alternifolia, I asite come to the conclusion 
that it is conspecific with Acridoe corymbosus Hook. fil. 
uillemin and Perrottet marion it, doubtfully, to ‘A. Smeath- 
manni, and Oliver owe them, rem marking, somerete that it might 
possibly i ao with A. corymbosus are three points in 
umacher and Thonning’s deseetplinel art suit A. corymbosus 
better that A, Smeathmanni, and none which, in my opinion, are 
more applicable to the latter. The points in favour of A. corymbosus 
1, leaves oblong; 2, inflor rescence a CO: mb or corymbose 
that he distin that ecies from 4d. ni (and 
A, plagiopterus) by its thicker leaves and by ger glands on 
their lower surfa t is evident that Jussieu made the comparison 
m Vahl’s specimen, since Thonning’s type, seen by Jussieu, had 
no leaves, and since there is no reference Heteropteris ? Smeath- 
mannt in Schumacher and Thonning’s description of Malpighia 
pose Now 4. corymbosus differs from A. Smeathmanni in the 
wo points mentioned by Jussieu as ciabtognishiaiy A, guineensis, 
