3.64 Prciin . — A? Review of the genera 
on. How little real ground there was for the reduction may be gathered from the 
treatment accorded to the two plants by Hooker and Thomson. These authors, it is 
true, have nominally accepted Don’s reduction of M .napaulensis to Papaver paniculaium. 
But they have pointed out (Flor. Ind., 253) that De Candolle’s description of 
M. napaulensis tallies better with that of their own species M. robusta than it does 
with that of Don’s Papaver paniculatum, which is their M. nipalensis. In 1855, 
when this remark was published, Hooker and Thomson did not account forWallich’s 
8121, which we know now is the true M. napaulensis ; when, however, in 1872, the 
same authors (Flor. Brit. Ind,, i. 118) did deal with the actual specimens of what — 
though they did not yet know this fact — is M. napaulensis , it is significant that it was to 
their own M. robusta , not to their own M. nipalensis , that they referred the plant. 
Apart, however, from the fact that the indumentum of Wallich’s 8126/E and 8124, 
which really belong to M. robusta , Flook. f. and Thoms., is not the same as the 
indumentum of Wallich’s 8121, which really belongs to M. napaulensis DC., and that 
though the foliage of the two is similarly divided the capsules and styles are different, 
we now know that M. robusla has yellow flowers like those of M. paniculata , and 
that the flowers of M. napaulensis are red. The position of M. napaulensis , as 
a species distinct from either of the yellow-flowered members of the group Robustae , 
is now established beyond dispute, and the question at issue is no longer whether 
M. napaulensis is, or is not, different from M. paniculata or M. robusta , but whether 
the blue-flowered Sikkim Poppy, M. Wallichii, so familiar in alpine gardens, is 
really specifically distinct from the much older, though less perfectly understood red- 
flowered M. napaulensis. When, in 1884, M. napaulensis flowered in England for 
the first time, as to which we have a definite record, Sir J. D. Hooker had no 
hesitation in treating it as a variety of M. Wallichii. That the two are closely allied 
is certain, and that they are representatives the one of the other in immediately 
adjacent areas is true. The form that the necessary reductions will take, if they must 
be effected, has been indicated. From the cultural point of view, however, these 
reductions would hardly be beneficial ; the writer therefore prefers to leave these 
various forms as they are. 
If 9. Chelidonifoliae , Prain, Journ. As. Soc. Beng\, lxiv. 2. 313 (1895) 
M. cambrica excludenda. Inermes ; perennantes ; caules elongati ramosi 
foliosi ; folia pinnatifida sparse hirsuta ; flores lutei petalis 4 ; stylus nunc 
stigmate globoso-clavato distinctus, nunc stigmate depresso-dilatato sub- 
obsoletus ; capsula glabra sensim in stylum attenuata vel subito in stigmatis 
plicaturas extensa. 
26 . Meconopsis chelidonifolia, Bur. & Franch. Rhizoma villosum ; 
folia ovato-oblonga segmentis ovatis lobis obtusis vel subobtusis, caulibusque 
sparse strigosa ; sepala glabra ; capsula ovata stylo distincto. Bur. & 
IWanch., Journ. de Bot., v. 19 (1891); Flora and Sylva, iii. 82 (1905). 
China OCCIDENTALIS. Szechuen occidentalis ; in dumetis et umbrosis, 
13,000 p. s. m. 
In every character except the fruit this plant is quite like M. Oliveriana. In 
this species the fruit is that of a typical Meconopsis , only half as long as that of 
