3i^t)cilsotienl]ron ^octetp ^otes(. 
There is an old plant at Kew which I believe may belong to Fortune’s 
importation, if not of the first, at least of the second generation. I knew it 
thirty years ago, and think it was then too large to have been raised from seed 
sent home by Maries ten years previously. I believe also the fine plant in 
Noble’s old nursery at Sunningdale is of the original importation. But judging 
by the dried specimens there is no difference between the original plants of 
Fortune’s introduction and those found 200 miles more inland by Maries. 
There appears to be an impression that R. Fortunei occurs wild in Western 
China. In Mr. J. C. Williams’ list of Rhododendron species at Caerhays, in the 
last number of the Society’s Notes (p. 136), his No. 102 is given as a Fortunei 
of Wilson’s introduction. I believe this “ Wilson 885 ” to be discolor, and 
venture the opinion that the true R. Fortunei has not yet been found anywhere 
wild except in Eastern China. 
R. Hemsleyanum, E. H. Wilson. 
There is really not very much to be said about this species for, so far as I 
know, it has not been introduced to cultivation, and there is only one specimen 
in the Herbarium at Kew. It was discovered by Wilson in flower June, 1904, 
on Mt. Orai, in Szechuan, the plants 20 feet high. It is closely alhed in botanical 
characters to R. Fortunei, having the same smooth stamens and glandular ovary 
and style. It differs, however, in the leaves, which are more like those of R. 
SEROTiNUM, very thick and leathery, 6 to 8 inches long, 3 to 4 inches wide, with 
two large auricles at the base. The flowers, ten or so in a truss, are white and 
3 inches wide, the flowerstalk clothed with stalked glands. Mr. Wilson says 
he saw it only on Mt. Omi, and that it was rare even there. He describes it as 
one of the largest and most handsome of the Chinese Rhododendrons. 
R. Houlstonii, Hemsley et Wilson. 
This Rhododendron was first named and described in the Kew Bulletin for 
1910, p. 110. Mr. Wilson evidently altered his mind as to its right to specific 
rank, for in the PLANTAi Wilsonian^ i., p. 541, he, in association with Mr. 
Rehder, reduced it to a variety of R. Fortunei. Nobody has ever been able to 
define what exactly constitutes a species, and I am afraid no one ever wiU. It 
must always remain a matter of opinion or, more likely, of the author’s tempera¬ 
ment and frame of mind. But R. Houlstonii seems to me to have a claim to 
specific rank quite as clear for instance as that of R. discolor. It differs from 
R. Fortunei in the leaves, which are smaller and more tapered at the base ; in 
the flowers, which have a more bell-shaped corolla and longer stamens ; in the 
flower-stalks, which are covered with much more conspicuous stalked glands ; 
and finally, in the blossoming season, which is at the end of April, or early in 
May, and therefore about three weeks in advance of R. Fortunei. 
I have seen R. Houlstonii only once in bloom—in 1918—and the plant 
was one at Kew with the Wilson number 648a. The flowers are of a very pleasant 
soft pink, nearly 3 inches in diameter, and eight or ten in a cluster. On page 166 
of the Society’s Notes, Mr. Magor alludes to 885 Wilson as “ Houlstonii or 
discolor ? ” That his plant, which flowered in July, is the latter I feel sure. 
189 
