HIGHLAND PLANTS FROM NEW GUINEA. g 
The specific name of this new species is gladly chosen in honour of one of the 
accomplished daughters of the discoverer of this plant, by his special request. 
Anaphalis nubigena from the Himalayas differs in more erect growth, in longer, 
less copious and less spreading leaves, with a tomentum also on the surface, and 
further in more venular-streaked involucral bracts. 
A. lanata (Gnaphalium lanatum, G. Forster, prodr. 55 ; G. Keriense, Cunningham 
in J. Hook. Fl. New Zealand I, 1388; Helichrysum micranthum, Cunningham in D. C. 
prodr. VI, 189), is still more alike the Papuan plant, diverging mainly in larger and 
less rigid leaves and in less denticularly rough pappus-bristlets, the anantherous 
flowers being very numerous in some of the headlets almost to the exclusion of the 
bisexual flowers, and the extensive dimorphism being also otherwise clearly 
perceptible. A prostrata (Helichrysum prostratum, J. Hooker, Flor. Antarctic. I, 30 t. 
21; Gnaphalium prostratum and G. bellidioides J. Hooker, Handb. of the New 
Zealand Flora I, 152), is another closely cognate plant, but with more appressed 
vestiture, broader and blunter leaves and solitary often only short-stalked capitulum ; 
also this species shows sometimes more anantherous flowers than others in the 
headlet. The same can be said of A. trinervis (Gnaphalium trinerve, G. Forster, 
prodr. 55), which includes G. Lyallii as a variety, and resembles very much the 
Himalayan A. triplinervis. All these plants have the fruits of the bisexual flowers 
imperfectly developed. It may be added yet to these notes on Anaphalis or 
Antennaria, that the Gnaphalium fasciculatum (Buchanan in Transact. N. Zeal. 
Inst. 529, plate xix.), reminds much of the Tasmanian Antennaria Meredithe. 
Whether the capitula of all the species of Raoulia are really monomorphous, 
can be best ascertained by extensive field-observations in the various native 
haunts of these plants. The writer having had ample opportunities for 
observing the very numerous gnaphaloid plants of Australia during more than forty 
years in their native localities, may be entitled to enunciate some independent views 
on the limitation of genera within this tribe of Composite. It seems to him, that a 
primary characteristic might be derived for Cassinia, Filago, Helipterum, Helichrysum 
and Gnaphalium, in plants with flower-headlets all of one form, and for Antennaria, 
Leontopodium and Anaphalis in plants with flower-headlets always of two forms, Raoulia 
being a doubtful genus between these two series, rather entitled to merge into the 
second than into the first. Gnaphalium, the earliest of these, as limited in recent times, 
stands to Helichrysum almost in the same relation as Hrechtites to Senecio, if its 
section Omalotheca became transferred to Helichrysum, a measure not objectionable, 
because we have in Australia species of Helipterum and Helichrysum with quite the 
involucre of the legitimate Gnaphaliums. Filago offers an approach to Cassinia, in 
which the involucre is also variable. Far more difficult it is, to settle the generic 
limits of the second group, now indicated, and indeed the question remains open for 
discussion, whether Antennaria would best be upheld in the original circumscription, 
