We refer the Chinese plant here although there are some small points of difference, principally on
account of its entire leaves, and panicled inflorescence of long and almost leafless spikes. Tho leaves
(we have only seen the upper ones,) are elliptical, obtuse, and mucronate ; the achenium is even on the surface,
shining, and horizontal, as in the true species of Chenopodium.
2. Chenopodium mriáe. Willd.?— C. hybridum. Lo u r. Fl. Coch. l . p . 2 1 7 ?
O r d . L X V I I I . P O L Y G O N EÆ . Juss.
1. Rumex Chinensis. Campd. R um . p . 75.— R. denticulatus. Dun. in Campd. I. c. p.
143.— R. Loureiri. Campd. I. c. p. 142.— R. crispus. Lo u r. Fl. Coch. 1. p . 269.
We have received this from Mr. Millett. Probably, as Sprengel suggests, it is too closely allied to R .
perdcarioides and R . maritimus.
1. Polygonum orientale {3, pilosum. Meisn. in Wall. PI. A s. Ra r . 3. p . 54.— P . pilosum.
Roxb. Fl. Ind. 2. p . 286.—Lagunæa Cochinchensis. Lo u r. Coch. 1. p . 272.
2. Polygonum Persicaria. L in n .—Meisn. Polyg. p . 68. Lo u r. FL Coch. I . p . 296.
This we have only received from Lappas Island, both from Mr. Millett and Mr. Vachell, n. 113.
b. Meisner, in his account of the East Indian Polygoneoe, in Wallich’s PI. As. Rar., does not enumerate
this species, although in his original work on the genus, he mentions it as a native of the East and of China.
P. glabrum appears to occupy its place in India; but, at the same time, the plant before us is certainly not
P . glabrum, nor is it distinguishable from the European form of the species.
3. Polygonum barbatum. L in n .—Lo u r. FL Coch. 1. p . 296. Roxb. FL Ind. 2. p . 289.
Meisn. Polyg. p . 80. in Wall. P L As. R a r . 3. p . 56.
4. Poly g o n umperfolidtum. L in n .— Lo u r. FL Coch. l . p . 298. Roxb. FL Ind. 2 . p . 288.
Meisn. Polyg. p . 65 ; in Wall. PL As. R a r . 3. p . 59.
5. Polygonum Chinense. L in n .—Lour. F l Coch. I. p . 297. Roxb. FL In d . 2. p . 289.
Meisn. in Wall. P L As. R a r . 3. p . 60.
Our specimen from Mr. Vachell, n. 110, is var. u of Meisner, or P . polycephalum. Wall. 1. n. 1707. a;
but one from Mr. Millett belongs to another variety; it is therefore probable that they are not constant.
O e d . L X IX . L A U R IN E Æ . Juss.
1. T e tran th era Roxhurghii. Nees ab Esenb. in Wall. Fl. As. R a r . 2. p . 65.—T . apétala.
Roxb. Cor. 2 . t. 1 4 7 ; FL Ind. 3. p . 819.— S e b ife ra viscosa. Lour. FL Coch. 2. p . 783.—
Tomex sebifera. Willd.— Berrya Chinensis. Klein.
Professor Nees Von Esenbeck, in the restricted generic character which he proposes, says that the three
inner stamina alone bear stipitate glands ; we, however, have sometimes fouud both the inner series furnished
with them, exhibiting, altogether, twelve glands. Roxburgh, in his Fl. Ind. at p. 820, confirms this ;
“ Nectaria! glands from six to sixteen, shortly pedicelled, oval, peltate, alternate with the filaments, but three
times shorter.”
2. T e tra n th era monopetala. Roxb. Cor. 2. t. 148 ; EL Ind. 3. p . 8 2 1. Nees ab Esenb. in
Wall. FL As. R a r . 2. p . 66.—Tomex Japonica. Thunb.
We agree with Roxburgh, that Tomex Japonica is not distinct from this species; and though Nees Von
Esenbeck keeps them so, he doubts if they ought not to be regarded as mere varieties.
1. lozoste rotundifolia, var. oblongifolia. Nees ab Esenh. in Wall. FL As, R ar. 2. p . 63.—
Litsæa Chinensis. Blume.
Dioica.— F l . M a sc . Perianthium 6-partitum. Stamina 9 : filamenta pilosa, tria intcriora ad basin glandulis
duabus magnis rotundis sessilibus instructa.—Wc have not yet received the female plant.
1. Cassytha f l fo rm is . L in n .— Roxb. FL Ind. 2. p. 314. Nees ab Esenh. in Wall. FL As.
R ar. 2. p. 69.— Calodium Cochinchense. Lour. FL Coch. 1. p . 392.— Vachell, “ «?.”
O r d . L X X . T H Y M E L E Æ . Juss.
1. Daphne Indica. L in n ,— Vide in hoc Op. p . 68. t. 15. VacheU, n. 138.
O r d . L X X I . N E P E N T H E Æ . L in k .
1. Nepenthes Phyllamphora. Willd. Sp. PL 4. p. 874. Sims Bot. Mag. t. 2629. Brong.
in Ann. Scienc. Natur. I. p . 48. Spr. Syst. Veget. 3. p . 84.— N. distillatoria. Lodd. Bot.
Cab. t. 1017. Graham in Ed . New Phil. Journ. n. 6. p . 371. et n. 16. p . 379. t. 6. Hook,
in Bot. Mag. t. 2798. W a ll? L is t o f E . I . Plants, n. 2244. (non L in n .)—Phyllamphora
mirabilis. Lo u r. EL Coch. 2. p . 744. Rumph. Herb. Am. 5. t. 59. f . 2 ? Vachell, n. 74.
Such are the only synonyms we are disposed to adduce here; almost all tho others quoted in the Botanical
Magazine belong to the Ceylon plant, which is that described inP7. Zeylanica,-^. 151. n. 3 2 1 , consequently, we
presume, of Hermann’s Herbarium, and therefore, the original N. distillatoria of Linnæus. Lamarck, and,
following him, Brongniart, have given to this latter the name of N . Indica, a name as objectionable as that
bestowed by Linnæus. Tbe true N . distillatoria has been only met with in the island of Ceylon, and in
the Courtallum district, towards the south extremity of the Peninsula of India. The present species is a
native of China, aud the mountains of Silhet, to the north-east of Bengal; but certainly not, as has been
inadvertently said in the Bot. Mag. under t. 2 7 9 8 , of the Circar mountains, which lie to the north of
the Peninsula. The differences between these two species are well pointed out by Brongniart, in the first
volume of the Annales des Sc. Naturelles, pp. 4 3 and 4 8 . N . distillatoria has a compound raceme,
or rather a panicle, each partial peduncle being branched, and bearing several spreading pedicels and
flowers. The Chinese one, on the contrary, has a long perfectly simple raceme. . Dr. Graham has observed,
that in a state of cultivation, some of the partial peduncles are occasionally bifid, or trifid, and our
specimens from the Edinburgh Botanic Garden exhibit the same appearance; but this seems merely to arise
from luxuriance ; not one of the very numerous specimens, both of the male and female, we have from time
to time received from Mr. Millett, principally collected in Lappas Island, presenting any such tendency.
We place little reliance on the leaves being petioled, nor, perhaps, ought the apparent petiole of N. Phyllamphora
to be regarded as more than an attenuation of the base of the leaf. Rumphius' figure is very bad;
Loureiro’s description is on the whole accurate, although the line-like parallel longitudinal veins are scarcely
conspicuous, and only so on the under-side of the leaf: the “ spica longa, simplicissima ” is very characteristic:
his “ caulis simplicissimus” less so, unless we suppose either that he had only seen young plants, or,
what is more probable, taken that part of his description from Rumphius’ figure : in the wild state, however,
the stem appears to be much more simple than when cultivated. M. Brongniart, in his memoir, above
quoted, places too much dépendance on the ascidia being furnished with, or nearly destitute of winged longitudinal
ribs : such marks afford no character whatever, those on young plants being very large and crest-like,
while the ascidia on older ones of the same species present mere ribs. Our specimen of N. distillatoria from
Dr. Wallich (n. 2 2 4 4 ) has no flowers; the leaves are more sessile, and much narrower than in the Chinese
plant, and the crests or ridges of the ascidia arc ciliated with longish hairs. We observe that Dr. Wallich’s
2 d