ö AET. I. — B. HAYAÏA : 



to the similarity of the figures of Moseleya pinnata Hemsl. 

 in Hookee'sIc. PL XXVI. t. 2592, (1892), and his drawings of 

 Ellisioplujllum reptans Maxim, which he had just made. The same 

 plant is an extremely troublesome one, as to its genus and 

 species as well as its family. Previous to the establishment of 

 Ellisiophyllum by Maximowicz, the same plant was found in Nepal 

 and is described as Mams pinnatus Wall. The plant was after- 

 wards referred to Our isla (1835), then to Hornemannia (1846), 

 then to Sibthorpia (1876) and finally to Moseleya (1893). The 

 last genus was established by W. B. Hemsley, as there was, as 

 he thought, being quite una.ware of Ellisiopliyllum of Maximowicz, 

 no proper genus for the plant. As is clearly seen in the com- 

 parison of the drawings of Moseleya and Ellisiophyllum, 

 above mentioned, they are two different genera established 

 for one and the same plant. Accordingly, it is clear that the 

 former should be reduced to a synonym of the latter. The 

 present plant should, therefore, be referred to Ellisiophyllum 

 with the specific name of pinnatum, as is stated by Mr. T. 

 Makixo.^^ Now I may return to the question as to what family 

 the plant should properly be referred ? In my paper " Flora 

 Montana Formosœ," I mentioned the plant under Hydrophylla- 

 ceœ. In 1909, Herr Professor A. Brand wrote me that he had 

 some doubt about this plant's belonging to Hydrophyllacea3 

 and expressed his desire to study it, asking me to send him the 

 materials. This being done, he soon published his paper on 

 Ellisiophyllum'' in which he expressed the opinion that Baillon's 

 statement, to which I have referred above, was correct. Accord- 

 ing to his opinion, all the Hydrophyllaceous plants have, without 



1) Maktno, t. in Tokyo Bot. Mag. XX, p. 92. t. V. 



2) Brand, A.— Ellisiophyllum, in " Zwei Kritischen Pflanzen Gattungen," p. 5. 



