214 
CHINA. 
[ UrticecB. 
foliis floralibus ad ejus ramificationum bases duobus oppositis parvis sarsum decrescentibus 
deciduis, involucri glandulis orbicularibus disciformibus concaviusculis processu luteo orbi- 
culari carnosulo duplo majore sulFultis, processubus inter se aequalibus, capsulis glabris Isevi- 
bus, seminibus subgloboso-tetragonis leviter rugulosis caruncula arillata destitutis angulo 
unico sulciformi. 
Hab. Peninsula of China ; Rev. G. H. VacJiell, n. 240. 
Ord. LXXIII. URTICE^. Juss. 
1. \J xiica. Millettii ; herbacea, dioica? foliis al tern is longe petiolatis subcordato-ovatis acu- 
minatis dentato-serratis supra piloso-scabriusculis subtus pubescenti-scabris, capitulis florum 
masc. axillaribus pedunculatis, pedunculis petiolo duplo brevioribus. 
We have seen but one specimen, and that very imperfect ; it was sent by Mr. Millett. 
1. Boehmeria? nivea. — Urticanivea. Linn. — Spreng. Syst. Veg. 3. p. 843. Lour. FI. Cock. 
2. p. 683. — U. tenacissima. Roxb. FI. Ind. 3. p. 590. 
The female perianth is urceolate as in Boehmeria, not 2-valved as in Urtica. Roxburgh hesitates about 
his plant being the same as U. nivea, from Loureiro’s erroneous description of the female flower, “ germen 
filamentis multis sterilibus circumdatum but Loureiro must have taken either the hairs on the ovary, or 
the styles of the other flowers, for “ sterile filaments.” The style is simple, with one, not two stigmas, as 
Loureiro says. 
2. Boehmeria Willd.Sp. ^.p.^^\ ? — B. Cocliinchinensis. Spr. — Urtica alienata. 
Roxb. FI. Ind. 3. p. 582. (an Linn. ?) — Parietaria Cochinchinensis. Lour. FI. Cock. 2. p. 
804. — P. Zeylanica. L. — Herba inemoria. Runiph. Herb. Amb. 6. t. \2.f. 2? 
Willdenow describes this as an herbaceous perennial, and Sprengel, we know not for what reason, inserts 
the Ceylon plant among the shrubby species. Linnaeus mentions it as herbaceous, but does not speak of its 
duration : Roxburgh finds it annual. We have not seen the root, but the stems are certainly herbaceous. 
The specimens before us, from Mr. Millett, have the leaves opposite on the primitive stem only, and alter- 
nate on the branches, thus differing from both Loureiro’s and Roxburgh’s description, but agreeing in that 
respect with Roxburgh’s U. tuherosa; this last, however, seems to have a differently shaped female perianth. 
The habit is quite that of a Parietaria, and although it and several of Roxburgh’s species of Urtica 
present almost no difference in character from Boehmeria, they possibly ought to form a distinct genus, or 
at least a sub-genus. One specimen before us is simiple with larger leaves, and all of them opposite, ex- 
hibiting more the habit of a small Urtica : this form agrees with Loureiro’s character, but it seems to be 
merely a younger state of the other. 
1. Trophis scandens; caule scandenti inerme, foliis breve petiolatis lineari-oblongis 
subiter obtuse acuminatis integerrimis utrinque glabris venosis Isevibus, floribus axillaribus, 
masc. dense spicatis, foem. paucis intra receptacula suberosa pedunculata 1-5-na aggregatis, 
fructibus oblongis. — Caturus scandens. Lour. 2. p. 751. 
Hab. Canton; Mr. Millett. 
Dioica. Caulis scandens, glaber, brunneus, punctis albidis adspersus. Spince nullas. Folia alterna, rigida, 
breviter petiolata, anguste oblonga, basi subcordata, apice subiter acuminata, acumine longiusculo obtuso, 
utrinque glabra, tactu Imvia, subundulata, supra Isevissima, subtus nervis venisque protuberantibus notata. 
