THE FLOBi HOTTGKONOENSIS. 37 



I 



style, the genera I'agm, Quercus, and Oyclobalanopsis — in the 

 second, to which he attributes erect male amenta, and styles 

 stigmatic only at the apex, Oastanea, Oastanopsis, Pascmia, and 

 Cyclohalarms, the limits of these genera being somewhat mo- 

 dified from the sections of former writers, on which they are 

 partly founded. I had myself suggested the combination of both 

 Gastanea and Oastanopsis with Querciis (Journ. Linn. See. x. 

 201), there not seeming to be any greater diversity of types 

 within the genus, as thus limited, than in Meus, which most bo- 

 tanists concur in preserving intact ; but M. CErsted has un- 

 doubtedly shown cause for a respectful consideration of his 

 views. 



M. Casimir de Candolle, who has revised the Piperacese for 

 the Prodromus, has reduced nearly all Miquel's genera to JPiper, 

 and mentions the following species, all belonging to his section 

 Ikifiper, as occurring in Hongkong. I cannot certainly identify 

 them with those described by Mr. Bentham, except the last ; and 

 he appears to record the second and third, which are differently 

 named in the ' Mora Hongkongensis,' only on Dr. Seemann's 

 authority in the ' Botany of the Herald.' 



Piper hongkongensis, Cas. DC. in DC. Prod. xvi. i. 347. 

 Piper Betle, Linn. ; Cas. DC. in DC. Prod. xvi. 1. S59. 

 Piper arcuatum, Bhime; Cas. DC. in DC. Prod, xvi. 1. 360. 

 Piper sinense, Cas. DC.inDC. Prod. xvi. 1. 361. (=Chaviea sinensis. 

 Champ. ; Bentk. VI. HongJc. 335.) 

 *Pinus sinensis, Lamb. 



Prof. Parlatore, in his recension of the Pinacese for De Oan- 

 doUe's Prodromus (xvi. 2. 389), states that the North Chinese 

 and Japanese tree usually considered to be Ptmis Massonicma, 

 Lamb., is a distinct species, for which he proposes the name of P. 

 Thunbergii; and that Lambert's true species is identical with his 

 P. sinensis, to which he therefore restores the other name. But, 

 supposing him to be correct in this decision, the suggested change 

 is surely not only unnecessary, but objectionable — because, as there 

 is no doubt that the tree so universal in Southern China is Lam- 

 bert's P. sinensis, to substitute for this name another which, 

 whether rightly or wrongly, has invariably been attributed to a 

 different species, can only be productive of ambiguity and confu- 

 sion, and has no argument whatever to recommend it. 

 33. Nechamandra Roxbiirghi, Planch, in Ann. Sc. Nat. Par. ser. 3, xi. 

 7» ; Mig. Fl. Ind. Bat. iii. 236. 



