58 T). Prain — Two additional species of Lagotis. [No. 2, 



In making this prediction it is clear that the material of our Hima- 

 layan forms at his disposal had been all too scanty and it is evident 

 also that, in making his enumeration, Mr. Maximowicz bad overlooked a 

 paper in the Society's Journal [vol. xxxix. (1870)] wherein the late 

 Mr. Kurz described two new forms belonging to the genus. One of 

 these must undoubtedly have fallen within the limits of L. glauca as that 

 species has been understood by Mr. Maximowicz ; the other is, however, 

 so remarkable and so distinct that there is every reason to suppose that 

 Mr. Maximowicz would have accorded it the specific rank claimed for it 

 by Mr. Kurz. 



In the Flora of British India, vol. iv, Sir Joseph Hooker has given 

 an excellent account of the Indian forms reported up to August 1885. 

 Here the validity of one of Mr. Kurz's species (L. glohosa) is incontrover- 

 tibly established ; one of Dr. Ruprecht's (L. decumhens), merged in 

 L. glauca by Mr. Maximowicz, is also justified ; another very distinct 

 and remarkable form (L. Glarhei) is also for the first time defined. 



Of the other Kurzian species (L. spectahilis), which Sir Joseph tenta- 

 tively maintains, it is remarked that it does not perhaps differ from 

 L. glauca ; to that species, following Mr. Maximowicz, Sir Joseph refers 

 the L. cashmeriana and L. Icunawarensis of Royle, as well as a somewhat 

 distinct form which he names L. glauca var. sikhimensis. At the same 

 time Sir Joseph has indicated very clearly the differences that exist 

 between L. cashmeriana and L. hunawarensis — differences that suggest 

 specific distinction. 



The plentiful accession of Himalayan material during the past ten 

 years makes it necessary to recognise two forms more. One of these, from 

 Phari,is very distinct and though in some respects related both to L. glohosa 

 and to Jj. decumhens it is in no sense intermediate between these two; its 

 claim to specific rank appears to be as unimpeachable as the correspond- 

 ing claim for L. glohosa or L. Glarhei. The other is by no means so satis- 

 factory. It combines certain cliaracters of L. cashmeriana, which it 

 resembles in habit, with some characters of L. glauca, from the Sikkim 

 variety of which its flowers and from the North-west Himalayan variety 

 of which its inflorescence are hardly distinguishable. 



However much may be said, from the monographer's standpoint, 

 in favour of the inclusion of L. cashm^-iana in L. glaicca there is no 

 doubt that from the point of view of th©''^ field-botanist the location of 

 L. cashmeriana and L. glauca VAR. huiyawarensls in one species is not 

 advisable. And the same may be said of the union of L. glauca 

 VAR. sikhimensis and L. spectahilis. Even from the monographer's stand- 

 point tlie writer is inclined to doubt whether much is gained by 

 merging either Lagotis cashmeriana or L. Stelleri in L. glauca; in 



( 



