linearibus, erectis. Pétala cuneatooblouga, couvoluta, apice emarginata. Stamina 5, longitudiue corollæ,
petalis inclusa : filamenta subulata : antheræ ovatæ biloculares. Discus carnosas planus, i'undum calycis
tegeus. Germen ovatum disco semi-immersum, a t tamen ei non adherens, biloculare : stylus filiformis pétala
oequans, tores: stigma capitatum. “ Drupa parva, oblongo-ovata, scabra, rubra; nucula obloiqra, bisulca,
bilocularis.” Loui'.
The above description, together with the accompanying figure, will, we trust, reclaim this beautiful species
from obscurity. There cannot be tbe smallest doubt of its being the plant intended by Linnæus, and we
think .there is as little of its being that of Loureiro, notwithstanding the many little discrepancies between
his account of it and ours. Loureiro states that his plant is furnished “ aculéis multis, sparsis, solitariis,
rectis, brevibus ; ” this distinction is, however, omitted hy De Caudolle, who says of Loureiro’s plant, “ ramis
inermibus,” and rightly, too, for it appears that Loureiro drew up this part of his character to suit Pluck-
net’s Phyt. t. 122. f. 4, which he quotes as a synonym, but n-bich is an East Indian, not a Chinese plant,
and more allied to Zizyphus, if indeed it has any thing to do with this natm-al order. Again, Loureiro
says, « folia subcrenata,” which is not correct, although the leaves, from the strong nerves bene.ath, do
exhibit a somewhat uudulated margin. His “ calyx 5-dentatns, minimus,” is obviously a mistake for the
small heraisphoerical tube ; while his “ pétala 10 lanceolata æqualia erecta,” comprehend both the calycine
segments and the petals, the latter being his “ interiora quinqué amplectentia stamina.” The remainder of
his description coincides with our plant. We ourselves h.ave uot seen the fruit.—We now come to Poiret’s
Rhamnus lineatus, which De Candolle makes distinct: on consulting his description, all he says of the
thorns is, “ les stipules forment, à la base des petioles, de petites épines très-courtes e t aiguës :” and these,
although we agree with Linnæus iu not calling them thorns, are precisely what we have seen. He
describes the flowers as solitary—“ solitaires et laterales dans I’aisselle des feuihes,” and we have occasionally
observed the racemes reduced to one flower; but we rather suspect that part of his character to be made
merely to accord with Burm. Zeyl. t. 88, which he cites ; and iu this we are confirmed by what follows the
above e.xtract—“ cependant vers l’estremité des branches elles forment souvent une petite grappe presque
terminale,” as in our specimens. It is obvious to any one who is in the habit of consulting tbe Encyclopédie
Méthodique, that Poiret aud Lamarck, when they had not sufficient materials of their ou'd, borrowed from
other authors without acknowledgment : and, in the present instance, not only is this true \vith regard to the
solitary flowere, but also as to the fruit, the description of which, “ une petite bale arrondie,” is evidently
taken from Burman’s figure ju st quoted. Poiret’s analysis of the flower, and description of the leaves, eveu
to the little terminal bristle or mucro, exactly agree with what is now before us. Thus, we trust, we have
made out satisfactorily, that the Rhamnus lineatus of Linnæus, of Loureiro, and of Poiret, are all one aud
the same plant. Of the older synonyms quoted by these authors, there can be no doubt of Plukn. t. 408. f.
3, which comes from China; but, as we have already stated, we cannot refer here to Plukn. t. 122. f. 4. As
to Burm. Zeyl. t. 88, the Berchemia Burmanniana of De Candolle, and Rhamnus Vitis-idæa of Burm. Fl.
Ind., it has nothing to do with this tribe of plants. Brongniart, in his Memoir on the Rhamneoe, has
proposed to make it a new genus, near to Andrachne. Moon, in his Catalogue of Ceylon Plants, refers it
to Phyllanthus rhamnoides. Dr. Wight and Mr. Arnott (Flora Penins. Indiæ Orient.) consider it identical
with Plukn. Phyt. 69. f. 3, and both as referable to Phyllanthus multfiorus of Klein’s Herbarium, and
consequently of WiUdenow. Perhaps Plukn. t. 122. f. 4, is a bad representation of the same plant.—Messrs.
Vachell and Millett find this plant about Macao and the adjacent islands.
T.4B. XXXVII. Berchemia lineata. Fig. 1, Flower; fig . 2, Section of do.; fig . 3, Petal aud stamen.
The Rhamnus theezans, Linn. (Sageretia, Brongn.) we have received from Mr. Millett; and also the
Ceanothus Asiaticus.
O r d . X X V I I . H O M A L IN E Æ . B row n .
1. 'BlackweWm fa g i fo l ia ; foliis elliptico-lanceolatis serrulatis supra glaberrimis subtus
puberulis brevissime petiolatis, racemis simplicibus spiciformibus axillaribus nutantibus
folium subæquantibus, floribus 6-8-anclris 2-4-gynis, perianthii laciniis 12-16 subbiserialibus
longe ciliatis subæqualibus, interioribus (?) latioribus spathulatis— L in d l. in Hort.
Trans, v. 6. p . 270.— B. padiflora. L in d l Bot. Beg. t. 1388.—Pythagorea Cochinchensis.
Lour. Cochin, l . p . 300.
It is extremely difficult to ascertain whether the narrow or broad segments of the perianth are exterior,
so nearly do they all form one series : but the smaller ones wiU be found to form a small ridge on the tube,
by their union to it, while there is a slight depression or channel from the base of the other series: on this
account wc have viewed the former as the exterior; but, whether they actually bo so or not, it is a t the
base of the smaller segments that the glands are situated, the stamens being placed opposite to the broader
series. De Candolle says of the genus, that the smaller ones are the interior, and opposite the stamens:
perhaps different species vary iu the relative size of the two series : but if uot, and if it is the smaller series
that is constantly exterior, a supposition confirmed by the structure of Homalium, then the stamens
must be viewed as opposite to the exterior row, as in that genus. This plant seems very closely allied
to B . axillaris, Lam. 111. t. 412, f. 1, from Madagascar, where, however, the spikes of flowers are much
longer than the leaves, tbe flowers smaller, and the leaves almost orbicular. The B.pudifiora of Mr. Lindley,
we consider to be identical with B . fagifolia.
The Rhus semialata, Murray, (R . Javanica, L.) is communicated by Mr. Millett from Macao.
O r d . X X V H I . C O N N A R A C EÆ . Brown.
1. Connarus Roxhurghii ; foliolis 2-3-jugis ovato-oblongis breviter obtuse acuminatis
subcoriaceis glaberrimis, paniculis axillaribus aggregatis folium subæquantibus, stylis 5,
capsifla solitaria.— Cnestis monadelpha. Boxb. Hort. Bengh. p . 34. F l Ind. 2. p . 454. De
Cand. Prodr. v, 2. )j. 87.
Macao. Mr. Millett.— Roxburgh says of this plant, “ seed solitary, attached to the bottom of the
capsule, as in the germ, ovate, invested in a complete orange-coloured aril: perisperm none,” with which our
observations accord, we trust there can be uo doubt about the propriety of removing this species from
Cnestis to Connarus. The same plant has been coUected by Dr. Wight in the peninsula of India, so that its
geographical distribution is tolerably extensive. Ou account of the firm and almost coriaceous nature of
the”leaves, the nerves aud venatiou are not prominent, by which character it may be readily distinguished
from C. santaloides, where tbe veins are promineut aud reticulated beneath.
2. Connarus microphyllus; foliolis 5-6-jugis oblongo-lanceolatis obtusis glabris vix
coriaceis supra nitidis junioribus subtus glaucis venis prominulis, petiolis ramulisque glaberrimis,
racemis axillaribus laxis paucifloris folio plus dimidio brevioribus.—Aegiceras minus.
Goertn. Fruct. 1. t 46.
This species is very closely allied to C. mimosoides of Vahl, from the Nicobar Islands, which has also
small leaflets, scarcely an inch long : but C. mimosoides is described with from 9 to 11 pairs, and they are
said to be deeply emarginate. In Vabl’s plant, too, tbe younger branches appear to be pubescent. Although,
therefore, wo aclcnowledge tbo close affinity of the two, we cannot unite them. The figure given by
Gærtner, of bis Aegiceras minus, so entirely accords with the fruit of our plant, both as to size aud shape,
that wc have quoted it without hesitation: wc ought to remai-k, however, that Roxburgh has pointed out
its affinity to his Cnestis monadclphus, the fruit of which is considerably larger; and Sprengel has quoted
it without doubt, under C. santaloides. In structure, it accords perfectly with the last species, and with
the genus.
3. Connarus? jugla n d ifo liu s; ftiiolis 4-5-jugis ovato-oblongis subiter acuminatis ncutis-
simis obliquis subfiikatis supra nitidis glaberrimis, petiolis ramulisque glaberrimis, paniculis
apices versus ramorum axillaribus, fructu (jmiiore) compresso oblique ovato.
Wo have neither seen the flowers nor the germens, the only specimen in the Collection having the latter
z 2
1 I
! ;
) ■*