﻿364 



0. macrophyUm 0. Hoffm. (Sert. PI. Mad. 7 (1881) ), founded on 

 Hildebrandt's No. 3239, from Nossi-Komba ; 0. multiflorus 0. Hoffm. 



1. e. (Nossi-Komba, Hildebnw.lt, No. 3337,; and O. t „, r rif,din» Scott 

 Elliot (Journ. Linn. Soc. xxix. 5 (1891) ), gathered in woods near 

 Fort Dauphin, Madagascar. 0. midtiflorm 0. Hoffm. is presumably 

 1 h. -.iiue as Garcinia disepala Vesque, as they are both founded on 



i . . , : 



to be compared with my father's G. pachyphyila. I have had no 

 opportunity of doing this, but there is considerable similarity 

 between them. 



I find no mention of Sphatrosepalum, a curious and interesting 

 genus having affinities possibly with certain Termtroemacece, perhaps 

 on this account excluded from the Monograph. The species origi- 

 nally described is S. alternifolium, gathered by Baron in M;i ia- 

 gascar, No. 2412 (Journ. Linn. Soc. xxi. 321 (1884) ). Mr. Scott 

 Elliot (Journ. Linn. Soc. xxix. 5 (1891) ) describes and figures a 

 second species, 8. coriaceum, from woods near Fort Dauphin, 

 Madagascar. 



M. Baillon's g. n s L< kn < in (Bull. Soc. Linn. Par. 1880, 244) is 

 not included! The solitary species L. Boiviniana was collected by M. 

 Boivin at Sainte Marie, in Madagascar, in 1851. M. Vesque may 

 possibly exclude it from Guttijerm. 



I have thought it worth while to place these notes on record, as 

 there is a danger that species omitted from so comprehensive a 

 Monograph may be re- described as new by some future student of 



NOTES ON BBITISH PLANTS. 

 By Arthur Bennett, F.L.S. 



It is manifestly impossible to discuss in our Floras questions 

 relating to distribution, variation, nomenclature, &e. In looking 

 through and collating various Floras, and various editions, we find 

 a constant name-changing going on. In this collating, I have been 

 struck with the want of correspondence between our Floras and 

 continental ones, each differing in some points from Nyman's 

 Conspectus; as well as by the uncertainty of priority, of relation 

 to the Linnean names, the utter want of any system of varietal 

 naming, &c. In these notes, I hope to put before British botanists 

 the difficulties attending some of these matters; and by con- 

 trasting various opinions, I may perhaps help to show the way to 

 a better appreciation of the works of our various authors. 



Many British botanists confine themselves to one text-book; 

 this is in many respects a safe and even a good plan, but it limits 

 the area of work and observation. It is, I think, better to see as 

 many Floras as possible, noting the differences in the mode of 

 describing the plants ; plants must of course be described and con- 

 trasted ; but it often happens that a single character will at once 



