, 1 - •
i h .
considerably swelled, in which we have only been able to trace ono ovulura sus])ended from a funiculus
tbat rises from the very base of the cell. If there be really only one ovulum in the germen, this plant must not
only be removed from Connarus, but from the tribe, and be placed near to Pistacia ; iu which case it may,
with the P . oleosa of Loureiro aud De Caudolle, be referred to Dr. Hamilton’s geuus, Cussambiurn. (Weru.
Trans, v. 5. p. 256.) Against this, however, the structure of the advanced germen seems considerably to
militate, being compressed, and evincing a tendency to split readily, nor does the epicarp separate, as in the
case of Pistacia, and other young drupes. We are therefore inclined to suppose, that there may actually
be two ovula present in the unirapregnated germen, aud we place it iu Connarus.
O r d . X X IX . L E G U M IN O SÆ . Juss.
1. Crotalaria retusa. L in n . Sp. PI. p . 1004.— Lupinus Cochinchensis. Lottr. Cochin. 2.
p . 520?
2. Crotalaria Vachellii; stipulis subulatis aculeiforinibus minutis recurvis, foliis trifoliolatis,
foliolis oblongis subretusis cum mucronulo subtus adpresse pubescentibus subpellucido-
pimctatis petiolum duplo longioribus, racemis patentibus subelongatis oppositifoliis, leguminibus
globosis breviter pedicellatis hirsutis styli basi indurato iincinatis.
This species is exceedingly common a t Canton, but we have not been able to discover that it is noticed
by Loureiro. I t approaches very close to C. virgata, Koen. and Roxb. (n. 373 of his drawings a t the India
House,) or C. divaricata, Graham, in Wallich’s Catalogue of East India Plants. The stems are herbaceous,
but what the duration of the plant may be we are ignorant. It belongs to a small groupe, proposed by Mr.
Brown to constitute a genus, Cyrtolobus; but as no character of it is yet published, we have uo means of
judging of its validity, and therefore leave it iu Crotalaria. Clavulium of Desvaux, (Ann. Sc. Nat, v. 9. p.
407,) another genus, consisting of species removed from Crotalaria, is uot distinct from it, or it must comprehend
many more species than the two pointed out by tbe Author.
1. Melilotus leucantha. Koch.
Dr. Graham (Wallich’s List of E. I. Plants, n. 5942,) appears perfectly correct in uniting this with M.
altissima, Thuill. Perhaps, therefore, the latter name ought to be retained as the oldest; but M. leucantha
is not only more expressive, but more generally adopted by Botanists. In like manner M. Indica is also
superseded ; it being no way distinct from M. parviflora, and is generally diffused throughout the world.
1. Indigofera h irsu ta ; caiile suffruticoso erecto, ramis teretibus, petiolis pedunculisque
hirsutis, foliis pinnatim 3-5-jugis, foliolis obovato-oblongis obtusis utrinque villosis, racemis
folio longioribus, leguminibus tetragonis 6-spermis pendulis hfrsutis. D e Cand.—L in n . Sp.
PI. p . 1063. De Cand. Prodr. v. 2. p . 288. Burm. Zeyl. t. 14. L am . 111. t. 626.
I. Lourea vespertilionis; foliolis lateralibus nullis aut minimis, terminali transversim et
falcatim oblongo subemarginato longitudine decies latiore. De Cand.—Desv. Journ. Bot.
3. p . 122.—Hedysariun vespertilionis. L in n .
1. Desmodium polycarpum. De Cand. Prodr. v. 2. p . 334. (non Wall.)—D . angulatum.
D e Cand. I. c. p . 335. {sec. specimen e WalUch, et in “ L i s t o f E . Ind. P la n ts," n. 5729.)
D . purpureum. Hook, et A rn . supra, p . 62.—D. Hippocrepis. De Cand. I. c. p . 338.—
Hedj’sarum purpm-eum. Roxb. Hort. Bengh. p. 57.— H. polycarpum. Poir. in Encycl.
Meth. 6. p . 41.— Hippocrepis barbata. Lour. Cochin. 2. p. 553. Burm. Zeyl. t. 53. f 2.
L am . III. t. 628. f . 4.
I t is unnecessary to repeat here the character we have already given of this species ; but we may remark
that the racemes of flowers are terminal as well as axillary. We place little dependence on the slightly
angled stems: indeed, if Dr. Wallich be correct in uniting the Hedysarum purpureum and Desm. angulatum,
we must almost suspect some error in the description given by De Candolle, as we have never observed the
stems more angled than is usual iu most species of tbe genus, where it is owing to the petioles being slightly
deciu-rent. It is more than probable that several other species ought to be joined with it.
1. Lespedeza Chinensis; erecto, petiolis brevibus, foliolis oblongo-obovatis retusis mucronatis
subtus strigoso-pubescentibus, racemis brevissimis breviter pedunculatis, leguminibus
lævibus calyce æqualibus. G. Don, in Mill. Diet. v. 2. p . 307.
We cannot butconsider this plant as distinct from Linnæus’ Hedysarum junceum, {Lespedeza juncea,Vers.
and De Cand.) which has the leaves linear and cuueate; as it assuredly is from the L . júncea of Dr. Wallich,
Cat. n. 5743, of which we possess specimens from that munificent Naturalist. Another aud Siberian species
has been named L. Pallasii by Mr. G. Don, in his edition of Miller’s Dictionary, although he does not appear
to be aware that it has been described and figured by Pallas, (Itin. App. 8. p. 394. t. 81. f. 4,) under the name
of Trifolium? hedysaroides, and has actually been introduced into the genus Trifolium, in De Candolle’s Pro-
droraus, v. 2. p. 204. n.,114.
1. Abrus precatorius. Lin n .
1. Rhynchosia volubilis; caule herbaceo volubili villoso tereti, foliolis subrotundo-ovatis
supra molliter pubescentibus subtus velutino-tomentosis, racemis axillaribus folio brevioribus,
leguminibus ovatis velutinis dispermis.— Cochin. 2. p . 562. De Cand. Prodr. v.
2. p . 385 ?
We think there is no doubt of our plant being tbat of Loureiro; although De Candolle, who examined an
original specimen, says that the racemes are longer than the leaves; it is probable, however, that he only
saw specimens in fruit, in which state the racemes might be elongated.although iu the specimens we possess,
with fully formed legumes, the racemes are still shorter tliau the leaf.
1. Soja hispida. Moench.
1. Cajanus bicolor. De Cand. Prodr. v. 2. p . 406. Rheede, Hort. Mai. 6. t. 13.
The specimen before us agrees exactly with what we possess from Dr. Wallich under the same name;
but we cannot perceive any constant mark to allow of its separation from C.y?auus,thenumber of seeds being
very apt to vary.
1. Pongsimitt Chinensis; foliolis 2-3-jiigis ovato-oUongis acutis glabris, racemis axillaribus
folio duplo triplove brevioribus, pedicellis verticillatis calycem subæquantibus ante authesin
recurvis. De Cand. Prodr. v. 2. p . 410.—Robinia mitis. Lo u r. Cochin. 2. ;j. 556.
We believe this to be Loui-ciro’s RoUnia mitis; and as he mentions that it is a shrub only three feet high,
while tho P. glabra is a iofty tree, we have been iiidiiccd to give a character that may mote effectually
separate the tavo.
1. In g arfy fc îs; spinis stipularibus brevissbnis rectis, foliis bigeminis, foliolis subdimiato-
oblongis obtusis subretusis cum mucrouulo, glándula in petioli dichotomia e t inter foliola,
petiolo liirto foliolis breviore, florum capitulis globosis racemosis, leguminibus tortis.—
Willd, Sp. PL V. 4. p . 1005. De Cand. Prodr. v . 2 . p . 436.—Mimosa dulcis. Roxh. Cor.
I . i . 99.
2. In g a dimidiata; ramis angulatis, foliis bipinnatis pinnis 4-jugis, pinnulis inferioribus 4 -
5-superioribus sub 9-jugis, glándula ad basin petioli tetragoni communis e t inter omncs pinnas