















2 Contributions from the Gray Herbarium 
fruit-characters. Pittier, Contrib. U.S. Nat. Herb. x 
(1916), has called attention to the similarity of Inga and 
lobium even as regards characters of foliage when all the k 
species are taken into account. This fact, however, is no 
ment for the consideration of these plants under one 
name since both genera, on the whole, are quite distinct. 
Merrill, Journ. Wash. Acad. Sci. vi. 42 et al. (1916), has 
it seems to me conclusively, that the relationship of Pith 
bium and allied genera will become greatly simplified if the fe 
be delimited so that it will no longer include species which ar 
errant, especially in character of fruit, since these genera 
largely if not entirely upon fruit-characters. The same s¢ 
characters used by Bentham and others to distinguish E 
bium, Albizzia and Calliandra from Pithecolobium and from 
other are exactly the type that present themselves for ree 
in the case of the segregate genera Samanea (Benth.) M 
Cathormion Hassk. The situation resolves itself, therefore, 
two possibilities, — either we must accord generic rank to ce 
species which have unique fruits and which cannot be 
logically in any of the genera maintained by Bentham 
discard the character of the fruit as of vital moment f 
nition of genera here and follow Mueller’s proposal to 
only one genus under the earliest name, Albizzia. ; 
possibility has not been viewed with favor by any student ¢ 
group; Bentham commented adversely, Trans. Linn. 
557 (1875), as did also Prain, Journ. As. Soc. Beng 
253 (1897). 
Samanea flexicaulis (Benth. ), comb. nov. Aes 
Benth. in Hook. Lond. Journ. i. 505 (1842). | 
caule (Benth.) Coult. Bot. Gaz. xv. 270 seve 
Samanea Schaffneri (Wats.), b. nov. 
Schaffneri Wats. Proc. Am. Acad. xvii. ii, 352 (1882). 
_ In spite of the presence of spines, the sessile fl 
length i 
“stated that the differences which I have just li 
ove tes and, sama, th typeof the gems a 
