74 THE JOURNAL OF BOTANY 
pee ay plant; and in the Old World by P. indicus. Fro 
e Mauritius to Melbourne is 4500 miles, and if the plant <a 
ras the Australian sulcatus (as I believe it does), it is a very 
interesting fact in distribution, as the other Mauritian species (ex- 
cept one unpublished) are cosmopolitan. 
P. austrauis F. Philippi ex Ar. Benn. in Journ. Bot. 1895, 374 
(nomen ) 
P. striatus Ruiz et Payon, Fl. Peru. i. '70; v. iv. 1798-1802. 
In this Journal for 1895, 374, I enue that Dr. Schumann 
had referred Spruce’s no. 5886 from the Andes of Ecuador to 
P, striatus. I denied this, and referred ateec s plant to P. australis 
F, Phil.; in this I was right, but wrong also, as australis is the 
same as str See and Dr. Schumann was quite right in his reference, 
and I am sorry I made so dogmatic a denial to a fact. 
It is probable that Prof, Philippi had never seen specimens of 
striatus, as it seems one of the rarest in herbaria, and the on nly 
specimens I have ste beyond the original ones of Dombey, are 
those vdllastad by “ Lo oe Expedition ‘Donau’ Frigate, 
1868-71,” in herb. Vien 
On the same page FE paneled I had a note of P. striatus as 
from Chili; so specimens were named distributed by the ‘‘ Unio 
itener. Chili, 1829,"’ herb. Vienna, but the fruits are not those of 
striatus, and cannot be referred to it 
Prof. Philippi’s specimens extend the distribution of striatus to 
‘‘Lacus Budi, in Araucaria.” is will be in Patagonia (now 
subject to Chili), the orig omen * ae being called Araucarians. 
P. Maackianus Ar. Bennett, sp 
P. serrulatus Regel & Manck ere “Pl. Ussur. 189 (1861), non 
Schrad. nec Opiz. 
P. Robb on Oakes var. japonicus Ar. Benn. in Bull. Herb. Boiss. 
iv. 549 (1896 
Further eit of this plant seems to point to its differences 
from the American P. Robbinsii being specific rather than varietal. 
It differs from Robbinsii in the scattered and irregular arrangemen 
of the leaves, in the leaves being shorter, blunt at the apex, the 
medial part of the leaf being continued beyond the leaf itself as a 
wide mucro; in the lesser number (5 as against 18-24 in Robbinstt) 
and greater prominence of the nerves, cross nerves being as stout 
as the others. The fruits are rather smaller, the peduncles shorter, 
and the whole plant is much smaller and less robust. In Robbinsit 
the arrangement of the leaves and branches is symmetrical, though 
this is sometimes lost in autumnal shoots, and in the flowering 
shoots; in the autumnal shoots (Lake Zurich, IIl., 
K, J. Hill), the leaves are all semi-erect. The lower leaves are usually 
alternate, regularly arcuate-recurved, the middlé ones patent, the 
upper patently-ascending. In Maackianus no such arrangement 
vl at the lower leaves being i irregularly scattered, the upper usually 
mi-erect ; thus the ae of the two plants is very different. 
P. Chamisso —In Linnaa, ii. 200 (1827), Chamisso has 
the following note: ‘ ’ Amicis ssimus Bory de St. Vincent ex eadem 
insula (mare au centre dans les bois de l’ile de France ; il ya 
