NOTES ON MYRICACE 85 
nreus 2 on the species as generally understood from 
South Afric 
5. M. pitas —Of this also there are two sheets written up 
by Linneus, which represent the species as aad Bases: and 
also i with Plukenet’s figures and speci 
herbarium also contains a fruiting seca: authenticated 
by Linvieus of M. ethiopica L. Mant. 298 (1771), which Linneus 
ope re a synonym of M. conifera Burm. f. Fl. Cap. Prodr. 81 
(1768), a d M. Chevalier has adopted the earlier name. Bur- 
mann’s aden is founded on Pluk. t. 48, fig. 8, and Linneeus also 
quotes Plukenet, together with a citation from Ray: ‘ Arbor 
conifera odorata, foliis salicis rigidis leviter serratis, Ray, Hist. 
1800,” presumably taken from Plukenet (Almagesta, 260 [errore 
typico 250] ), as Ray himself adds e a hae Plukenet has con- 
fused with the African species the Am n M. cerifera; he says, 
‘©ex America quoque nobis allata est, & a 1 nostratibus Bermudensem 
insulam degentibus, Laurus odora vulgo nominatur.’’ Ray’s citation 
also doubtless refers to M. cerifera. The confusion has extended to 
the figures ; tab. 48, fig. 8, in his mh tie ie Pebei inate . sesh to 
he ican species, is obvious y a mal e same 
species as fig. 9, which represents a fruiting petite wot f cerifera, 
The leaves are exactly alike in the two plants , and have the serra- 
tions in the upper part of the blade which characterize M. cerifera. 
So‘that Burmann’s M. conifera, which is founded exclusively by a 
reference to Plukenet’s figure, becomes a synonym of M. cerifera, 
and the African plant is M. ethiopica L. Mantissa, 298, excluding 
rehicnaeil to Burmann, Ray, and, in part, Plukenet; also of Lin- 
neus’ herbarium 
The Linnean herbarium also contains two sheets marked 
in Linneus’ hand, ‘‘ Myrica: ? trifoliata?” one in r, the ohiae 
in fruit, and bearing the roy ‘‘ Konig 77.” hey » eprabent the 
East Indian Rhus mysurensis Heyne, and cannot ee ae a any 
optnen with Myrica trifoliata L. Pl. Afr. var. and Amoen. Acad. 
vi. 112, which is an African plant ( igenerally referred ey “Toddalia 
IWnchaleva), at differs also (e descript.) in the shape of the leaf and 
its dentate margin, and also in the scabrous fruit. 
as following are a few notes on individual spec 
OCTANDRA “Buc han. Hamilt. ex D. Don, Prodr. “FLD Nepal. 56 
(1885). —M. Chevalier retains this siento bi he knows only 
from the brief description in Don’s Prodromus. We haye Buchanan 
men ooiuetite of one shoot, 
spike, which is 
mine, without ~aeobovie the spike, the flowers are not « pan 
about 1°5 cm. a As far as Iam ow oe 
