1894,] D, Prain — Sovie additional species of Convolvulacese. 95 



10. Lettsomia barbigera GlarJce, Flor. Brit. Ind. iv., 194, excluding 

 all the synonyms. 



The writer has failed to discover what this species, which is not represented 

 in the Calcutta Herbarium, really is. The localities given are " Assam ; Jenkins," and 

 "British Burma: Prome, WalUch." To these Mr. Clarke has since added Mampde 

 (Journ. Linn. Soc. xxv., 49). The last-mentioned gathering is not represented here ; all 

 of Capt. Jenkins' " Assam " specimens at Calcutta are referable to other species ; the 

 plant collected by Wallich at Prome and issued as part of Cat. n. 1404 belongs 

 to a species which, Dr. Stapf informs the writer, is not Mr. Clarke's Lettsomia 

 harhigera as represented in the Herbarium at Kew. 



Wallich's Convolvulus harhiger {Cat. n. 1404) consists of two parts; viz., 1404/1, 

 a plant cultivated in the Botanic Garden at Calcutta and stated expressly by Wallich 

 to be Lettsomia strigosa Eoxb, of the Hortus Bengalensis as opposed to the plant 

 so named in the Flora Indica ; and 1404/2, made up of two gatherings from Burma, 

 the first from the Irrawaday Delta, the second from Prome. Of the three gatherings 

 which therefore go to make up Convolvulus harhiger Wall, the F. B. I. formally 

 excludes two and retains only the one from Prome : Cat. n. 1404 is therefore only quoted 

 in part. The part which is quoted is not the first sheet, which (in the event of any con- 

 fusion having occurred) must be taken as the type, and indeed only forms a iiortion of 

 the remainder. As it is specifically distinct from the type of C. harhiger that name 

 must therefore be excluded entirely from the synonymy. 



Itis not Pharlitis harhigera Bon {Gen. Syst iv., 262) at aU. That plant is a 

 native of North America and is a true Ipomoea. 



Not being Convolvulus harhiger of Wallich, it cannot be Argyreia harhigera of 

 Choisy, for though that a\ithor somewhat unaccountably ignores altogether Wall. 

 Cat. 140i/l, which is the true type of Wallich's plant, he has written a description 

 that applies only to the gathering of 1404/2 from the Irrawaday Delta which is 

 the same as 1404/1 and which is, therefore, as explained in the note under the 

 preceding species, 'precisely = Lettsomia peguensis Clarke. 



Choisy was not unaware of the fact that the remaining gathering of 1404/2 

 differed fx-om the one to which his description alone applies. He speaks of it as a 

 variety (though he does not distinguish it by name) with " leaves hardly cordate, 

 peduncles short and few-fid., and leaves, at least when adult, less tomentose." 



The citation of Pharhitis harhigera Don as a synonym originated with Choisy; 

 who errs also in speaking of the species as coming from " Prome ad aestuar. 

 Irrawady " whereas Wallich explicitly says in his Catalogue "Aestuar. Irrawadi ; 

 et Prome ; " Choisy's citation of locality therefore reads as if he sup230sed that 

 Prome was situated in the delta of the Irrawady. At all events it does not make 

 the fact clear that Wallich has two gatherings under 1404/2, still less that these 

 gatherings represented two different species. 



Since Wallich's time the Prome plant referred to above has been collected 

 on the Pegu Yomah by Kurz, and more recently still in Upper Burma and the Shan 

 Hills by native collectors sent from the Calcutta garden. One of these 

 latter specimens which Dr. Stapf has kindly compared with the Kew material of 

 Lettsomia harhigera Clarke, he has been able to assure us differs from that 

 species. Since, therefore, one part of Wallich's Cat, n. 1404 agrees with Mr. 

 Clarke's plant, it is evident that Dr. Wallich must have issued tlii'ee things under 

 that number, t'iz. 1. Lettsomia peguensis = 14,0-i/ 1 and 1404/2, {in part), 2. Lett- 

 so7nia harhigera = some -part oi 1404/2, from Burma, and by Mr. Clarke's citation, some 



