— 20} - 



which now makes us think of the Asiatic A. marina, („ovario stigmatibus 

 subsessilibus"), now, through its white flowers, of the A. nitida JACQ. from 

 America.- WIGHT (Icon. Plant. Ind Or. !V (1850) part III p. 16), was the 

 first to correct the mistake, giving back to the „Oepata RHEEDE" the original 

 name of A. officinalis L, while at the same time he recognized the small 

 flowered A. alba Bl. as being a separate species. CLARKE in HOOK. f. Flor. 

 Brit. Ind., unites once more the two Asiatic species into one, the A. officinalis 

 L, jo'ning to it the A. albaBL as a small-flowered variety alba(BL.) CLARKE. 

 Schimper („Die Indo-Malayische Strandflora" (1891) p. 98), decided to sub- 

 divide the kvicennias into three species, two of which were attributed to 

 America, while the Asiatic species were brought back to a single one, the 

 A. officinalis L. From many points of . view this division appears to be 

 incorrect. As one of the main differences between the Asiatic and the American 

 plants, the dehiscence or indehiscence of the fruit on the tree was considered. 

 This peculiarity, viz. of dehiscence of fruit on the tree, which is supposed 

 to be the case for the American species, was also reported for the Sceura 

 marina FORSK. growing around the Red Sea, \ while I observed it myself 

 with the A. alba BL. (Tab, 14 q et r) This dehiscence occurs very easily, es- 

 pecially in damp weather before the falling off of the fruit. As a distinction 

 between the groups of species, this peculiarity seems to me very insufficient. 

 Neither does the division into two species of the American branch of kvi- 

 cennias, in connection with pubescence or glabrousness of the interior of 

 the corolla, and also the greater or smaller development of the style, seem 

 to me quite sufficient. The concordance of characters of the A. nitida J ACQ. 

 with those of the A. officinalis L, that is to say, the general pubescence 

 of the ovary and style, the nearly general pubescence of the hypocotyle- 

 dons and the size of the seeds, is of more value in my opinion. At any 

 rate, the A. officinalis L. differs at least as much; if not more from the 

 A. marina (FORSK.) VlERH. as from the A nitida J ACQ., while the differences 

 between A. marina (FORSK.) VlERH. and A. nitida JACQ. are much 

 smaller. 



AVICENNiA L. 



kvicennia LINN. Syst. Ed. I. (1735) p. 894; LINN. Gen. Plant. Ed. I 

 (1737) p. 27; LINN. Gen. Plant. Ed, II (1742) p. 44 (!); LINN. Flor. Zeyl. 

 (1748) p. 23 (!); J ACQ. Selec. Stirp. Amer. (1763) p. 177 (!); LINN. Gen. 

 Plant Ed. VI (1764) p. 579 (!); JUSS. Gen. Plant. (1774) p. 108; REICH. 

 Gen. Plant. (1778) p. 328 (!,}; LAM. Enc. Méth. Bot. I (1783) p. 329 (I); 

 JUSS. Gen. Plant Ed. Uster. (1791) p. 121 (!); WlLLD. Linn. spec. Plant. 

 III p. I (18C0) p. 395 (!); PALIS. BEAUV Flor. d'Oware I (1894) p. 80; 

 PERS. Syn. Plant. II (1807) p. 143 (!); R. BR. Prod. Fior. Nov. Holl. (1810) 

 p. 518; BL. Bydr. Flor. Ned. Ind. 14e st. (1826) p. 820 (!); R. BR. Prod. 

 Nov. Holl. Ed. II (1827) p. 374 (!); WALL. Plant. As. Rar. III (1832) p. 

 446;(!'J; R. BR. Verm. Bot. Schift. Ed. NEES AB ESENB. V (1834) p. 401 

 [I )l Endl. Gen. Plant (1836 -1840) p. 638 No. 3722 (!); MEISN, Plant- 



