1. Dasyloma glaucum. De Cand. Prod. 4. p , 140.— Biforís Bengalensis. Wall. Cat. n.
588. B. {in Herb. A m .)
H a b . L oo C h o o an d B o n in .
1. T o rilis Japonica. D e Cand.— Vide supra, p . 189.
H a b . L oo Choo.—We scarcely see how this species differs from small specimens of the European T.
Anthriscus.
1. Daucus Carota. Linn.
H a b . L oo C h o o .
O r d . X X V I . C A P R IF O L IA C E Æ . Juss.
1. L o n ic era ; to ta glabra, ramis volubilibus, foliis petiolatis ovatis acutiusculis
integris su p ra lucidis subtus pallidis, pedunculis axillaribus p etiolo fere brevioribus bifloris,
corollæ tubo gracili folio duplo breviore.
H a b . L oo C h o o .— T h is is v e ry c lo se ly a llie d in h a b it to L . chinensis, b u t th e branches a n d leaves are
p e rfe c tly g la b ro u s. I n c h a ra c te r it resem b les L . longijiora, b u t th e re th e flo w e r is v e ry lo n g .
O r d . X X V I I . R U B IA C EÆ . Juss.
1. Mussænda glabra. Vahl,— Wight et Arn . I. c. p . 393.
H a b . L oo C hoo.
1. G a rd en ia rarftca«^. Thunb. Diss. Gard, n . \ . t . \ . f . D eC a n d .P ro d .4 . p .Z 7 9 .
H a b . Bonin and Loo Choo.— This differs principally from G. fragrans in the shape of the leaves.
. 1. Stylocoryne racemosa. Cav. Ic. 4. i. 368. D e Cand. Prod. 4. p . 377.
H a b . L oo C h o o .
2. Stylocoryne Webera. A . R ich .— Wight et Arn. I. c. p . 401.— Cupia corymbosa. De
Cand. Prod. 4. p . 394.
H a b . Bonin.—Although the specimens be very imperfect, they obviously belong to this genus, and
apparently to the present species.
1. Hedyotis (Diplophragma) multijlora. Cav. I c . 6. t. 574. / 2 ?
H a b . B o n in .— T h e o n ly specim en in th e c o lle c tio n has n o flo w e rs , b u t th e rem a in s o f a fe w o ld capsules,
w h ic h enab le us to re fe r i t to th e n e ig h b o u rh o o d o f H. Lawsonia a nd H. fruticosa ; o u r p la n t is cons
id e ra b ly b ra n c h e d , a n d is p ro b a b ly sh ru b b y a t th e b o ttom o f tb e stem .
2. Hedyotis bifiora. Brown,— Wight et Arn. I. c. p . 413.— V a r.? p a r v ifo lia ; foliis
minoribus spaihulato-oblongis subcoriaceis, radice subperenni.— H . ramosissima. Blume
B ijd r . p . 972 ?
H a b . Loo Choo.— The largest leaves are only about three-fourths of an inch long, and two and a half
lines broad. The capsule and inflorescence are precisely as in the usual form. Had Chamisso and Schlech-
tendahl not described their Gerontogea racemosa with lanceolate and acuminated leaves, we should have rather
referred it to the Loo Choo variety of this species, than to Hed. ( Oldenlandia) racemosa. Hedyotis bifiora.
Brown, or Oldenlandia biflora, Linn., must not be contonndod with Oldenlandia biflora of Lamarck and most
other botanists, which is Hed. ( Old.) Burmanniana, Vr.— Gonotlieca Blumei, De Cand. I. c .p . 429, is, on
the authority of the specimen referred to in the Paris museum, and which was compared for us by M. Adr.
de Jussieu, identical with Hedyotis alata. {Kamigia, Wall. Cal. ». 6196, and Wight and A m . Prod. I.
p . 413.)
1. Gramilea Reevesii. Hook, et Arn. supra, p . 193.— Fsyaholria Mariana. Bartl. et De
Cand. Prod. i . p . 5 8 2 ?
H a b . L oo Choo and Bonin.
1. Galium rotundum. Thunb. Fl. Jap. p. 59 {vix tamen G. rotundifoUum, L in n .)
H a b . Loo Choo In our plant the fruit is young, and covered with numerous sharp papillæ, or very short
straight hairs, so that it appears to be more allied to the Euparines or Goccogalia of De Candolle, than to
the section to which G. rotundifoUum belongs. We are ignorant of the duration of the plant ; De Candolle
does not seem to notice it.
O rd . X X V H I. C O M P O S ITÆ . Juss.
t . Vernonia ctfterea. Less— H ad. Bonin and L oo Choo.
1. E u p a to rium Reevesii. W a lU — D e Cand. Prod. 5. p . 179?— E. chinense. Tkunb.
Fl. Jap. p . 3 0 8 [non L in n .)— H ae. L oo Choo.
1. Blumea lacera. De Cand. Prod. 5 . p. 4 3 6 .— H a b. L oo Choo.
B . chinensis, H. & A. (vide supra, p. 195) is Duhaldea chinensis, De Cand. 1. c. p. 366.
1. Dichrocephala latifolia. D e Cand. Prod. 5. p . 372.— E th u lia ageratoides. H . et A.
supra, p . 66 (from Gambier’s Island).
I . Hisutsua ? serrata ; foliis omnibus serratis— H a b. Loo Choo.
Perhaps this is a mere variety of H. cantoniensis (De Cand. Prod. 6. p. 44), to which species onr
Myriaetis javanica (supra, p. 195) certainly belongs. This genus seems scarcely to differ from Mynactis.
as now defined by M. De Candolle ; the glands on the underside of tbe ligulate florets are in our speeimens
so inconspicuous as only to be observable with a microscope : the appearance of the flower is that of one of
the Aster tribe.
1. W e d elia calendulacea. L e s s De Cand. Prod. 6. p . 6 3 9— H a d . L o o Choo.
1. Wollastonia prostrata. H . et Æ—Verbesine prostrata. H . et A . supra, p . 547—
H a b . L o o Choo.
1, A rtem isia /lîÆca. W i l l d . - D e Cand.Prod. 6. p . W i . -N 'i 'A g a x h . Thunb. Ft. Jap.
p . 3 1 0 .— H a b . L oo Choo.
1. M a ru ta Cotula. De Cand. Prod. 6. p . 13— M. foetida. Cass— Anthemis Cotula.
L in n .— H a b . Loo Choo.
1. Emilia stmchifolia. De Cand. Prod. 6. p . 3 0 2 .— H ad. Bonin.
1. Carthamus tinctorius. L i n n . -D e Cand. Prod. 6. p . 6 1 2 . - H ab. Loo Choo.
2 1