200 SYSTEMATIC POSITION OF MITBASTEMON. 



at home or abroad, until nearly five years ago, when another specimen also 

 in a very imperfect state was found in Shikoku, another southern island of 

 Japan. The plant was then first examined by T. Making (Making I., p. 

 326), who with some hesitation regarded it as a plant possibly referable to 

 the Rafflesiacese. His opinion was based presumably on a consideration 

 of only the external features of the plant, and not upon a careful examination 

 of the morphological structure of the flowers, and certainly without studying 

 its attaching organ or its anatomical character. It was considered by him 

 to be a plant representing a new genus, and was then first named Mitraste- 

 mon Yamamoioi Mk. Later on, towards the end of 1911, an exhaustive 

 description of the plant, beautifully illustrated, was given by T. Making in 

 the Journal of the Tokyo Botanical Society. In this article he regarded 

 the plant as representing a new family, the Mitrastemonacese, distinguish- 

 able from the Rafflesiacese by its having a gamophyUous cylindrical and 

 truncate perianth, a mitriformed staminal columne and a superior ovary. A 

 little previously, i.e. in 1910, another plant much like the former was found 

 in the southern part of the island of Formosa. This parasite, being far larger 

 than the Japanese plant and differing slightly from the latter, was conse- 

 quently described by me as a new species, Mitrastemon Kaivasasalcii Hy. 

 (Hayata I. p. 112). In my then description of this new parasite, I was 

 merely following Making, and did not in detail go into the systematic posi- 

 tion of the plant. Later on, I became strongly of opinion that the plant 

 belonged to the RafHesiacese, and accordingly transferred it to that family 

 (Hayata H., p. 11.). 



As I have said above, Mitrastemon was first referred to the Rafflesiacese, 

 then was considered to represent a new family, and even to be comparable 

 to the Nepenthacese (Making II., p. 252). Consequently, the systematic 

 position of the plant has been much confused. In the present paper, it is 

 my desire to make a few remarks about the systematic position of the 

 parasite when considered from the point of a comparision of its morphological 

 and anatomical characters with those of other families; and more especially 

 from a deliberate consideration of the difierent characters which separate our 

 parasite from all the plants at present referred to the Rafflesiacese, to decide 



