1893.] D. Prain — A review of the genus Colquhounia. 33 



and clear as to leave no room for doubt that his plant is identical with 

 the Assam one referred by Bentham to G. vestita* 



In 1873 Houllet figured as G. tomentosaf what appears to be the 

 same plant. 



In 1876 Bentham and Hooker speak of the possible existence of a 

 fourth species! ; it is not clear whether by this fourth species be meant 

 Schlechtendal's G. mollis, which is cited indirectly through a reference 

 in Walpers ; or a Burmese plant collected by Mason, Parish, Anderson 

 and Kurz since published as G. tenuijlora Hook. f.§ but which in 1877 

 Kurz|| described as G. elegans. Kurz wrote under the disadvantage of 

 only knowing Wallich's plant from the figure which Wallich gives of it ; 

 that figure, as has already been said, is quite misleading. 



The next account to be noticed is the most important of all — that 

 by Sir Joseph Hooker in the Flora of British India: Here four species 

 are described : — r _ ..... 



1. G. coccinea Wall. ; with Bentham's var. parviflora excluded. 



2. G. vestita Wall.; limited, in the sense, adopted by Bentham 



in 1848, to the Kamaon plant of Wallich and the Grif- 

 fithian plant from Assam, ^[ — the Nepal plant originally 

 included in G. vestita being excluded and Schlechten- 

 dal's G. mollis not being referred to ; the identity of 

 G. vestita as a whole with typical G. coccinea is suggested. 



3. G. elegans Wall. ; limited to the original Wallichian plant 



from the Taong Doung Mts.; its identity with G. 

 coccinea var. parviflora Benth., is suggested. 



* There are two minor references to the genus by Walpers, Annates iii, 363 

 (1852) where he mentions C. coccinea; and Annales v, 689 (1858) where he gives 

 Schlechtendal's diagnosis of G. mollis : this last reference is cited in the Genera 

 Plantarum though the original description in Linnaea is not. 



f Houllet, Rev. Hortic. (1873) p. 131. It should, however, be pointed out that 

 Sir Joseph Hooker does not agree with the writer's view in this respect. He 

 refers Houllet's plant to C. coccinea (and it may be that form of G. coccinea 

 called by Bentham vak. major) ; Griffith's plant is referred in the F. B. I. — as 

 Bentham referred it — to G. vestita ; C. mollis is not Quoted in Sir Joseph's article. 



J Genera Plantarum, ii, 1208. , 



§ Flor. Brit, hid., iv., 674. This form — apparently more common than true 

 G. elegans — extends from Tenasserim to Yunnan. In. the Calcutta Herbarium 

 it is in evidence that at one time Kurz thought this distinct from the G. elegans of 

 Wallich's description — of which he had no specimen — and proposed naming it G. mar- 

 tabanica. Later, he decided that it must be the C. elegans, of Wallich's figure, 

 Which it resembles, as to tomentum, rather more closely than the true plant does. 



|| For. Flor. Brit. Burma, ii, 278. 



% In Mr. C. B. Clarke's Herbarium this Assam pla'nt is distinguished from the 

 Kumaon C. vestita proper, as G. vestita var. rugosa C. B. Clarke MSS. 

 J. ii. 5. 



