CONTRIBUTIONS TO BOTANY. 
107 
reflexo, convexo, integro, acuto. — Ceylon, v. s. in herb. Hook. 
(Walker, sub. nom. ‘‘Cocculus cynanchoides”). 
In its general appearance this plant approaches nearest to 
H. pauciflora : its branches are very slender, with axils | inch 
apart; its leaves 2 inches long, 9-13 lines broad, on a petiole 
5 lines long; peduncle 3 lines long, with three alternate pubes- 
cent bracts in the middle; the flower in bud is 1 line in diam., 
with three minute pubescent bracts at the base, eight glabrous 
submembranaceous sepals, with ciliated margins, unequal in size; 
two small, thick, fleshy, placentiform petals ; no stamens ; two 
erect, gibbous, glabrous ovaries, with a convex, acute, reflexed 
stigma. This plant is very difierent from the Cocculus cynan- 
choides, Presl, which is a species of Nephroica. 
19. Limacia. 
In describing Hypserpa, I have shown it to be very distinct 
from Limacia, with which it has been confounded by the authors 
of the ‘ Flora Indica ’ and the ‘ Genera Plantarum.’ In h^bit 
there is a certain degree of resemblance between them ; but in 
their floral structure there is a positive want of compatibility. 
In Limacia the male flowers are constantly isomerous, the inner 
row of sepals consists of three ; they are thick, fleshy, pilose on 
both sides, with a decidedly valvate aestivation ; the petals are 
invariably six, and embrace as many stamens standing opposite 
to them ; there is, however, a distinct group in which only three 
stamens are present, but the flowers are still isomerous : rudi- 
ments of three or six ovaries are found in the centre of the 
flower, which are not seen in Hypserpa. In this latter genus 
the flowers are always heteromerous, the more membranaceous 
sepals are conspicuously imbricated in sestivation, and there are 
many other discrepant characters which it is not necessary to 
repeat here, as they have been already described. Limacia will 
therefore maintain its ground, distinct from Hypserpa, within 
the limits I pointed out thirteen years ago ; but as at that pe- 
riod I had not seen the fruit, Limacia was then placed among 
the Pachyyonece, in accordance with the meagre details of its 
structure given by Loureiro. When I first noticed this group 
of plants, I named it Stereoclea, on account of the peculiar aesti- 
vation of its sepals ; but on seeing Loureiro’s plant in the British 
Museum, I instantly recognized it as the same : the previous 
name was therefore made to indicate the triandrous section, 
which for the present is retained in the genus, but which pro- 
bably will turn out to be distinct when its fruit is known. 
There is a general analogy between Limacia and Hypserpa in 
p 2 
