ON SOME CRITICAL CHINESE SPECIES OF CLEMATIS. 268 
mucronatis, basi 3-nerviis, costis supra minute — cetera 
glabris, reticulo venarum supra impresso subtus prominulo. In- 
florescentia cymoso- —- pedunculis clabeign <j pone pube- 
lis, o-floris, axillaribus et terminalibus. Sepala 4 seems 
apiculata extus puberula marginibus uunimtallia, Achenia 4-5 
ovata pilosa caudis longis barbatis. Siccitate tits _— et 
selene nigri, folia supra nigricantia subtus fusco-pur 
MATIS TERNIFLORA Benth. (non DC.).—Ramosa nae sie petio- 
lis tortilibus. Ramuli striati cum pedunculis, presertim statu 
— pubescentes. Folia pinnatisecta 5-nata, petiolulis 1- a 
pollicaribus, segmentis late ovatis v. subcordatis acutis 14-2 po 
banis 3 1~1}4 poll. latis, basi 5-7 nerviis, utrinque parce pi oma 
us, reticulo venarum supra distincto subtus: prominulo. In- 
florescentia cymoso-paniculata, axillaris et terminalis, peduneulis 
©-floris. Sepala patentia circ. 4-linealia oblonga 8-nervia intus 
inequalia glabriuscula, antheris filamenta equantibus v. iis 
longioribus. Achenia 4 ellipsoidea adpresse kcieedin. caudis 
es ame barbatis. Polia week — et obscure brunnea. 
e two species when dried present differences in their degree 
of «blackening * which, though sin enough, are hard to define 
in words. The leaves of (. chinensis are mu om the darkest, and the 
black is modified by a sort of deep maroon lustre; while those of 
C. terniflora are of a dull brown colour and of a coarser texture. 
I may also mention that I have dean all the latter curiously pitted, 
as if from the attacks of some insect, but I have not observed the 
O: 
scrap from Lord Macartney’s collections at Wham whic 
resembles this species in many respects, but, from the grees size 
‘and the pubescence of its fruits, seems more likely to have come 
from an upper branchlet of a form ne or a The specimen is, 
however, too scant for satisfactory det 
M. Maximowiez (l.c., p. 596) suggest that C. minor Lour. may 
be identical with C. chinensis. ast April, when in aris, I was 
e were only of a single internode and some were placed 
mg down, the frst effect of the ensemble was, to say the least, 
very quaint. I could see nothing in the specimens to distinguish 
them from C. chinensis, but there is no evidence to show that they 
were Loureiro’s type of his C. mino 
LEMA oo DC. ~The identity of this “A with C. 
tubulosa Sehes . stans Sie b. & Zuce.), suspect y axim- 
8. & Z.. which, however, cannot be specifically separa C; 
avidiana Dene., which has been cultivated in the Botanic Gastuns 
