l i t i ' ' ' /
■: 'fi:
O r d . X I I I . A U R A N T IA C EÆ . Corr.
1. Triphasia trifoliata. De Cand. Prodr. v. 1./?. 536.—T . aurantiola. Lour. Cochin. I. p.
189.— Limonia ti-ifoliata. Lin n .
1. Coo\Cm punctata ; foliolis ovato-lanceolatis basi v k inæqualibus, floribus paniculatis.—
lie tz . Ohs. 6. p . 29. L am . III. t. 354.—Qumaria Lansiuni. Lour. Cochin, p . 272. Rumph.
Amb. 1. t. 55.
" The fresh leaves, when rubbed, smell like anise-seed.”— CoUie, M S S .
1. Murraya exotica; foliolis cuneato-oblongis obtusis coriaceis, pedunculis multifloris
corymbosis, baccis submonospermis.—Lmn. Mant. p . 393. L am . III. t, 352.—Chalcas
Japonensis. Lo u r. Cochin, p . 332. Rumph. Amb. 5. t, 18. f . 2.
This must not be confounded with the M. exotica of some Botanists, particulai-Iy of Roxburgh, Flora
Indica, v. 2. p. 374., and n. 48 of his drawings, in the East India Company’s Museum, and apparently of
Dr. Wallich’s List, n. 6368, which appears to be the Chalcas paniculata of Loureiro, the Murraya paniculata
of Smith’s Herbarium, aud Rumphius’ Herb. Amb. 5. t. 17, a species which is too closely allied to
M. Sumatrana. Roxb. Hort. Bengh. p. 32, and Fl. Ind. v. 2. p. 375. With this last, is identical M. paniculata,
Jack, and Hook. Exot. Fl. t. 79; it has the flowers terminal, and not nearly so panicled, if indeed
they can be said to be so a t all, as in the other species, hence, as Jack observed, the name given by him
ought to be changed to M. Sumatrana, even although he had not given it upon the supposition that his
and Loureiro’s plants were the same. The true M. paniculata may be characterised, “ foliis ovatis, floribus
paniculatis;” while M. Sumatrana is distinguished shortly by « foliis ovatis acuminatis, floribus terminalibus
subsolitariis.”
1. Glycosmis citrifolia ; foliolis 4 -5-alte rnis oblongo-lanceolatis basi inæqualibus u trinque
acuminatis integerrimis, panicula contracta racemosa, corolla campanulata, fructibus ovuto-
sphæroideis obliquis. L in d l. in Hort. Soc. Trans, v. 6, p . 72.—Limonia citrifolia. Willd,
En um . p . 448. De Cand. Prodr. v. 1. p . 536. L . parviflora. Sims, in Bot. Mag. t. 2416.
D e Cand. Prodr. v. 1. p . 536.
The genus Glycosmis is perhaps only distinguishable from Limonia by the structure of the fruit. In
Limonia, the pericarp is tough, and resembling the rind of an orange, and the seeds are covered with pulp.
In Glycosmis, the pericarp is fleshy, like the eatable parts of a cherry, and the seeds are destitute of pulp.
—We possess Clansena excavata, Burm., and Atafanria mowop/zy/Za, DC., of this Order, from near Macao,
gathered by Mr. Millett.
O r d . X IV . H Y P E R IC IN E Æ . Juss.
1. Hypericum Chínense; /3. caule tereti, foliis ellipticis obtusis paullo nigro-punctatis,
pedunculis bibracteatis, calyce oblongo obtuso nigro-punctato, stylis coadunatis. Chois.—
L in n . Amoen. v. 8. p . 323. Chois, in De Cand. Prodr. v. 1. p . 545.— H. monogynum. Lin n .
Spec. p . 1101. Bot. Mag. t. 334.—H . aureum. Lour. Cochin. 2. p . 578.
Sent also by Mr. Millett.
2. Hypericmn (Tridesmos) b ifo rum ; caule glabro subtereti griseo, foliis ovato-ellipticis
glabris acutis vix acuminatis, sepalis æqualibus integris ovatis obtusis, glandulis tribus carnosis
majusculis cum staminum phalangibus tribus alternantibus, stylis tribus stamina æquantibus.
L am . Encycl. Meth. v. 4. p . 170. De Cand. Prodr. v. 1. p . 546.— H. Chiiiense. R e tz. Obs.
Bot. 5. p . 27. (non L in n .)— B , petiolatum. Lour. Fl. Cochin. 2. p. 577. (non L in n .)— U.
Cochinchense. L in d l. in Hort. Soc. Trans, v. G. p . 6 7 ? (non Lowr.)—H .? carneum. Wall.
L is t o f F a s t In d ia Plants, n. 4820.
On account of the three large glandular bodies that alternate with the bundles of stamens, and which
are described both by Lamarck and Loureiro, although passed over in silence by Choisy, this plant, which
we have likewise received from Mr. Vachell aud Mr. Millett, ought perhaps to form the type of a genus,
in which might be included, U. Cochinchense of Loureiro, a plant with obtuse leaves, and H.? coccineum.
Wall. List, n. 4823, if indeed this last be not the same with the species from Cochin China. Perhaps also
H.? pulchellum and H . f horridum of Wallich’s List, nos. 4821 and 4822, are congeners. The genns
Tridesmos would be also distinguished from Hypericum, by the floivers being more or less of a red colour.
O r d . X V . G U T T I F E R Æ . Juss.
1. Garcinia Cochinchensis ; foliis oblongo-lanceolatis, ramulis tetragonis, floribus axillaribus
vel terminalibus brevi-pedunculatis subracemosis.—CViof«. in De Cand. Prodr. v. 1.
p . 561. ?—Oxycarpus Cochinchensis. Lour. Cochin. 2. p . 796.
Such is all the character the solitary specimen before us will permit us to give. It does not well accord
with the figure quoted by Choisy, in Rumph. Amb. 3. t. 32 ; but it agrees better with Loureiro’s description.
The genera Garcinia, Xanthochymus, and Stalagmitis are in great confusion, and require to be studied
anew from living specimens. Thus, as Garcinia is a t present characterised by both Choisy and Cambessedes,
not one species would belong to it : in all the species, the structure of the male flower is precisely as in
Stalagmitis: and even, if we suppose the character of “ stamina libera” to allude to the hermaphrodite
flower alone, we shall scaixely find any but G. Mangostana to which it is applicable ; the other species
being almost without exception dioecious, and not polygamous. In some, no doubt, as in G. paniculata,
Roxb. Fl. Ind. (with which it may be remarked, that G. Boobicowa, Roxb. H. Bengh. and G. Tuntook,
Roxb. MSS. n. 1064, at tbe India House, are identical), there are rudiments of stamens in the female
flowers: in others, there are stamina with glands instead of anthers, but such fiowers cannot be termed
hemaphrodite. Perhaps Garcinia may be resfricted to the polygamous species, n-hile Stalagmitis (or
Brendonia, for we can see no dlflPerence between them) includes the truly dioecious ones. As to
Xanthochymus, we believe all are polygamous, and have the male organs alike both iu the male aud
hermaphrodite flowers ; besides, there is iu the hermaphrodite, a glaud, and iu the male, a lube of the discoid
torus, between each bundle of stamens, which is not to be seen in either Garcinia or Staglamitis. Cambes-
sedes has properly removed both Staglamitis aud Xanthochymus from the section, having unilocular fruit.
1. Caio^\\y]\mn spectabile ; f o l i i s elliptico-lanceolatis aut rarius ellipticis utrinque sæpius
acutis, racemis axillaribus brevissimis paucifloris, sepalis et petalis quatuor— Willd. Mag.
Berl. 1811. 80 ?—C. Soulattri. Burm. Ind. p . 121.—C. Suriga. Ham. in Roxh. Fl.
Ind. 2. p . 608.
Choisy, in De Candolle’s Prodromus, says that the flowers are loosely racemose, which is far from th<-
case ill our plant: but then he quotes, without doubt, Burman’s C. Soulattri, to wbich, again, Roxburgh
refers with equal certainty, as his C. Suriga; Roxburgh’s short character, “ leaves linear, oblong, polished,
llowers verticilled below the leaves,” belongs evidently to our species, although the fioivers are really
axillary, and not infra-axillary. With regard to the other species in the Flora Indica, they seem to be
scarcely known, and even Dr. Wallich does not refer to Roxburgh in his List of East Indian Plants. Yet
wc believe there can be little doubt, wheu we compare the descriptions with tbe specimens, that C. Bintagor,
for which Roxburgh quotes Rnmph. Amb. 2. t. 71, is C. inophyllum, G., of Wallicli’s List, n. 4841 ; that
C. angustifolium is Wallich’s C. pulchcirimum, ii. 4848 ; and that C. lanceolariiim, is C. Tacamahaca, Willd .
As to C. acuminatum, Lam., or Humph. Amb. 2. t. 72, usually quoted under C. spectabile, it appears to be
adistiuct species, with marrow leaves, six inches or more in length.