510 D. Prain — Some additional Leguminosa?. [No. 2, 



ings, shows that the 3 forms of " Khair " hardly overlap but appear rather to be 

 representative one of another in tolerably well-defined areas. The fact that A. Sun- 

 dra should fill the area to the south-west of that occupied by A. Catechu and should 

 again recur in an indistinguishable form to the east of that occupied by A. 

 catechuoides is perhaps as good a proof as any that all three are but manifestations 

 of one species. It is interesting to note that the area occupied by A. Suma crosses 

 that occupied by this amplified A. Catechu almost at right angles, and that though it 

 is in Mysore intimately associated with A. Sundra, in Orissa and Behar with A. 

 Catechu proper, and in Assam with A. catechuoides, it nowhere shows the least 

 tendency to pass into any of these forms. In this, the writer believes, we have 

 a very strong confirmation of the justice of Mr. Baker's treatment as opposed to 

 that of Dr. Wight. 



12. Acacia Senegal Willd. 

 Add to localities of F. B. I. : — 



Rajputana ; very common everywhere, King ! Brandis ! Moir ! 

 Duth'e ! Panjab ; at Rhotak, Bailey ! 



17. Acacia Intsia Willd. 



The writer quite thinks with Mr. Baker that A. oxyphylla Grah. is only a variety 

 of A. Intsia. 



A. Caesia, however, the writer agrees with Wight and Arnott and with Kurz in 

 keeping separate. The crowded leaflets, always hairy beneath, make it very easy 

 to recognise A. Caesia, even in the herbarium, and apart from the fact that its 

 general facies is quite different from that of A. Intsia and that no one dreams of 

 confounding the two as they grow. But A. pseudo-Intsia, referred to A. Caesia in the 

 F. B. L, is a very distinct species that, though resembling A. Caesia in externals, is 

 in reality more nearly allied to A. pennata than it is either to A. Intsia or to A. 

 Caesia. 



18. Acacia pennata Willd. 



1. Var. canescens seems certainly a distinct species, easily separated from A. 

 pennata by its longer pedicels and its pale, differently shaped pods. Very nearly 

 related to this is another form from Burma, like A. canescens Grah. in other respects 

 but with rather larger leaflets and with much larger pods ; they have, however, the 

 slightly thickened sutures that are found in the pods of true A. canescens. This 

 large fruited form must be known as A. pennata var. macrocarpa or A. canescens 

 var. macrocarpa according to the view that is adopted regarding A. canescens. 



Typical A. canescens is common in Burma and also occurs frequently in Western 

 India from Canara to Travancore ; it appears never to have been collected in India 

 to the east of the Western Ghauts. 



2. Var. arrophula also appears to the writer to deserve specific rank. The 

 stipular gland is, however, quite the same as in true A. pennata and there are 

 some specimens regarding which it is not easy to decide in the herbarium whether 

 they should be referred to var. typica or to var. arrophula. The most satisfactory 

 diagnostic characters seem to be the pubescent rachis never prickly beneath (typical 

 A. pennata) and the glabrous rachis prickly beneath (A. arrophula Don.), but some- 

 times the rachis in A. arrophula is pubescent and prickly, sometimes glabrous and 

 unarmed. No one could possibly confound the two in the field. 



3. Var. pluricapitatu would also certainly be better considered a distinct 



