34 D. Prain — A review of the genus Colquhounia. [No. 1, 



4. C. tenuiflora Hook. f. ; the new species referred to above. 



Two more recent references to the genus have now to be noticed. 



Mr. Hemsley in his Index Sinensis* mentions one species ; this he 

 identifies, though rather doubtfully, with G. coccinea. The plant comes 

 from Hupeh, South China, and the same form has more recently been 

 collected in the Kya Valley, Upper Burma, by Genl. Gratacre. It is not 

 C. coccinea, bat is much more nearly allied to G. elegans ; though a very 

 distinct form, it is probably quite sufficiently differentiated if treated 

 as a variety of the last named species. 



Sir Henry Collett and Mr. Hemsley in a paper On a Collection of 

 plants from Upper Burma and the Shan Statesf mention two species : — 



1. G. elegans Wall. ; the true Wallichian plant, never met with 



since it was collected by Wallich till it was obtained in 

 1887 by Genl. Collett, who speaks of it as certainly the 

 most beautiful Labiate of the Shan Hills. Like C. 

 coccinea var. mollis ( G. mollis Schlecht. ) this is always 

 an erect shrub;| as regards colour of flowers there are 

 two distinct forms, one with pale salmon-coloured, the 

 other with dark red corollas. 



2. O. vestita Benth., not of "Wallich ; not the true Wallichian 



plant, but Schlechtendal's 0. mollis, Mr. Clarke's G. vesti- 

 ta var. rugosa. 

 The generic descriptions given by Wallich, Bentham, Schlechtendal 

 and Hooker are so accurate and full that nothing can be added to them, 

 and little is necessary beyond providing brief diagnoses of the various 

 forms met with in the genus. Of these last there are altogether seven, 

 and though in this paper they are treated as only of varietal rank, it 

 may well be that other writers will find it necessary to consider them 

 distinct species ; indeed, as species at present go in the natural order 

 Labiate, it cannot be denied that forms so very distinct as the real G. 

 vestita of Kamaon and as Hooker's G. tenuiflora are well entitled to the 

 higher ranks. But what has to be pointed out very distinctly is that 

 on those who may feel compelled to give this higher rank to these 

 species of Wallich and of Hooker, it will be incumbent to recognise also 



* Journ. Linn. Soc, xxvi, 299 (1890.) 



f Journ. Linn. Soc, xxviii, 1-150 (1890), 



$ Genl. Collett remarks (Journ. Linn. Soc. xxviii, 8) on the discrepancy between 

 this fact and the definition by Kurz (For. Flor. Brit. Burma, ii, 278) of C. elegans as 

 ' a scandent or half-scandent shrub.' Kurz's definition however does not in the 

 least refer to Wallich's original plant but to that other form collected by himself in 

 Pegu, named by Sir Joseph Hooker C. tenuiflora, which is always a scandent 

 plant. 



