1897.] D. Prain — Some additional Leguminosae. 411 



7. ERYTHRINA L1THOSPERMA Miq. 



Add to localities of F. B. I. : — Pegu ; common, Adamson ! Brandts I 

 Kurz ! Shan Hills ; Terai, Collett ! Tenasserim ; Makana, 2000 feet elev., 

 Gallatly! Perak; at Kinta, Kunstler n. 7103 ! Penang ; Wallich ! Singa- 

 pore ; Hullett n. 80 ! Distrib. Sumatra ( Teysmann) ; Java, common. 



There is no doubt as to the accuracy of Mr. Kurz's statement that the Indo- 

 Chinese plant is exactly the same as E. sumatrana Miq., from Sumatra, of which 

 there are authentic specimens in Herb. Calcutta. But the Java plant described as " E. 

 lithosperma Bl." by Miquel, to which Mr. Baker has referred the present species does 

 not differ even as a variety from the plant of Sumatra, the Malay Peninsula and 

 Burma. It must, however, be recollected that Mr. Kurz has noted that E. lithosperma 

 BL, as described by Miquel, is not the true E. lithosperma of Blume which, Kurz 

 says, was a plant introduced to Java from Mauritius. Messrs. Koorders and Valeton, 

 in their recently issued Java Herbarium, issue the Java form of the species under 

 review as E. lithosperma. They have, however, issued it as " E. lithosperma Miq.," 

 not as " E. lithosperma Bl." — their reason for this being that Blume's E. lithosperma 

 is only E. indica, and that the name is thus left free, but on Miquel's authority, not 

 on Blume's, to designate our species. 



Erythrina holosericea Kurz, Journ. As. Soc. Beng. xlii. pt. 2. 69, the validity of 

 which Mr. Baker has already doubted, is a spurious species manufactured by 

 combining in one description the characters of the flowers of E. ovalifolia and of the 

 leaves of E. lithosperma which had been sent to Herb. Calcutta, by an officer of the 

 Indian Forest Department, under the idea that they belonged to the same tree. 

 The citation of this composite " species " as Corallodendron holosericeum by Kuntze in 

 that author's Rev. Gen. Plant, i. 172, in a passage where he takes the opportunity to 

 (as the writer thinks) unnecessarily resuscitate an obsolete generic name, might 

 lead to the belief that Kuntze had taken the trouble to verify the validity of 

 the Kurzian species, as to the existence of which Baker had justly expressed 

 a doubt. Obviously Kuntze has done nothing of the kind, and any one but a 

 botanist would be inclined to conclude, from a citation such as this, that the object 

 of much of the bouleversement effected by priority-mongers is less the restoration 

 of generic names that may have been improperly suppressed than the search for 

 opportunities of posing as the authorities for species of whose characters they are 

 ignorant. 



63. STRONGYLODON Vogel. 

 1. Strongylodon ruber Vogel. 



Add to localities of F. B. L: — Andamans ; very common, Prain! 

 King's Collector's ! 



64. GRONA Lour. 

 1. Grona Grahami Benth. 

 Add to localities of F. B. I. : — Bengal ; Manbhum, Campbell ! 



65. GALACTIA P. Br. 

 1. Galactia tenuiplora W. 8f A. 

 J. ii. 52 



