90 
CONTRIBUTIONS TO BOTANY. 
12. Abuta Seemanni, Tr. & PI. Ann. Sc. Nat. 4 ser. xvii. p. 50; 
— Abuta spicata, Tr. ^ PL l.c.4>9; — Batschia spicata, Thunb. 
1. c. tab. 2. fig. 2 ; — Batscbia conferta, nob. in Bot. Herald, 76 ; 
— Trichoa spicata, Pers. 1. c. 634; — Trichoa conferta, DC. l.c. 
103 ; — ramulis teretibus, pubescentibus, demum glabris ; 
foliis ellipticis, utrinque subacutis, opacis, glabris, nitidius- 
culis, superne convexis, triplinerviis, in sulcis nervorum pube- 
rulis, in venis transversis immersis canaliculatis, subtus pal- 
lidis, nervis bine prominentibus, margine cartilagineo revo- 
luto ; petiolo subtenui, apice paulo incrassato, glabro ; panicu- 
lis ^ spicatim racemiformibus, solitariis, axillaribus, gracilibus, 
folio sublongioribus ; floribus pubescentibus ; rachi, ramis 
brevibus, pedicellisque bracteolatis ; staminibus 6, fertilibus, 
insigniter birsutis, 3 alternis angustioribus ; racemis ? (vide 
Thunb.) axillaribus, spicatis, floribus confertis. — In Ecuador, 
Mariquita (Mutis) ; v. s. in herb. Hook., Isth. Darien ad 
“Ardita Bay” (Seemann). 
When I first described this species in the ‘Botany of the 
Herald,’ I regarded it as being identical with Thunberg’s second 
species of Batschia, of which no distinct character had been 
given. The specimen accompanying Dr. Seemann’s plant, with 
flowers too little developed for determination (suggested as pro- 
bably the female of the same), is, no doubt, a species of Smilax, 
as Prof. Grisebach rightly judged. MM. Triana and Planchon, 
who have since also described the species in question, considered 
it to be specifically distinct from Thunberg’s second species; 
but, although I have here adopted the name they have given, I 
cannot accord with their conclusion. The only ground on which 
they retain Batschia spicata, Thunb., as a distinct species is the 
character related of its spicated inflorescence and the number of 
its staminodes ; there is no specimen known of it, no character 
given of its general habit, no knowledge of tbe form or size of 
its leaves, nor drawing of its inflorescence, to sustain its right 
to stand distinct from Dr. Seemann’s plant. In the details 
transmitted to Thunberg, the female flower, which appears to 
have been known only to Mutis and Valenzuela, is described as 
having three staminodes only, whereas there are six in Batschia 
racemosa. In regard to its more spicate or more simple racemose 
character, this is a feature of sexual difference only, common 
throughout the whole family ; and I cannot regard the number 
of staminodes as a feature sufficiently verified. In the days of 
Mutis and Valenzuela, the same exactness in observation was 
not practised as in our days. I was for a moment deceived 
myself by a similar appearance ; for, on examining a specimen 
of M. Triana’s collection, the first flower analyzed presented the 
