262 ON SOME CRITICAL CHINESE SPECIES OF CLEMATIS. 
In reply my friend wrote that the plant could not well be the 
C. terniflora of Mr. Bentham and of all other recent authors, 
himself included. ‘It has larger and shorter leaflets, and fruits 
of double the size of Mr. Bentham’s plant ; and these are distinetly 
margined, which the fruits of Mr. Bentham’s plant are not. 
Further, while DeCandolle had described the ultimate leaflets as 
) 
stronger-margined see m ; / 
shurica Rupr. to C. recta L., var. mandshurica (1.c., p. 595), had 
drawn attention to the difficulty of distinguishing its commoner 
form from C. paniculata Thbg. The stem of C. mandshurica 18 
lata the veins are usually indistinct but never impressed on the 
which is certainly C. chinensis Retz. (!). The result was a deserip- 
i ing i r. ma 
terniflora by Bentham and Maximowicz appears to be. This Li 
ably also accounts for the fact that Fortune’s specimen A. pe 
which is Mr. Bentham’s @. terniflora, was placed by Ms, Beane 
in the British Museum on the same sheet with Fortune’s A. Ay 
which is C. chinensis, and that both were bracketed together by M- 
Maximowicz (I. c., p. 596) under C. terniflora DC. The two species, 
although closely allied, are, however, distinct enough, as will ap cu 
from the following descriptions drawn from the types and the othe 
material at my disposal :— 
* There are none such now remaining on the type specimen. 
