volatile oil; bat it cannot be relied on absolutely, on account of the small scale of the analysis.
The result, however, is sufficiently accurate to show, when taken along with the sensible.quali.
ties of the gum resin, that the Xanthochymus pictorius does not yield an exudation resembling
in any material property the true Gamboge of the Hebradendron.”
Remarks on Genera and Species. Dr. Lindley remarks “ that European Botanists are.
much in want of good observations upon the living plants of Guttifera, and that there is no
order that is more in need of elucidation from some skilful Indian Botanist than this. ’ That
such is a desideratum in Botany there can be no question, but I would, with much deference, suggest
that European Botanists,who enjoy infinitely greater advantages for entering on the task of elucidation
than Indian ones, should show the way, by thoroughly investigating the characters of the
venera and species, so far as that can be done from preserved specimens. It may appear paradox.
Teal to state that European Botanists enjoy greater advantages for this work than Indian ones, but
it is nevertheless true. Indian Botanists are few, and very remote from each other,with but little
intercourse, and generally having other duties to engage their attention,whence Botany, in place
of a professional pursuit .becomes with them a mere recreation. So situated, few enjoy the
opportunities required for the successful elucidation of a difficult natural order, even when well
qualified for the work ; each, only becoming acquainted with the species, within his own limited
circle, generally, too few to admit of his attempting from them any thing like a comprehensive
examination of a complex order! - He therefore, in plane of attempting the nearly hopeless task
here assigned to him, more frequently when possessed of a scientific friend in Europe, sends
specimens there to have .them examined, and named, and,but too frequently is disappointed lu
his expectations. In this way large collections .of all kinds of plants, from all parts of India,
have gradually found their .way to Europe and been brought, together in the large European
collections. Let these .in the first, instance be well investigated by a scientific Botanist, the
genera and species clearly defined, their present confused synonymy unravelled, and such descriptions
as can be made from dried specimens drawn up and published* to put theless qualified Indian
Botanist in possession of the information thence attainable, and then-he will have a firm foundation
on which to build his observations made on growing plants. It is true that equally perfect descriptions
cannot be made from dried specimens, as from growing plants, but I feel assured,
from my own experience, that even with this most disheartening order, much more might have
been done than has been yet effected. Having thus pointed out the disadvantages under which,
in this country, we labour, from want of materials to work upon, I trust due allowance will,be
m add for such errors and defects as may appear in the following attempt at elucidation, taken near.y
entirely from the examination of dried, specimens, some of which doubtless would have been
avoided had my series of specimens been more complete.
I believe I may .with perfect safety set out with the proposition, that the order ltselt as it
now stands is very badly constructed, being composed of the most heterogeneous materials.
One section.Clusiece, has an ovary with many cells, with many ovules in each, a dehiscent capsular
many valved fruit, and (except when the symmetry is disturbed by abortions) a quinary
proportion of the parts of the flower—almost the very characters of Hypericinea, and consequently
much more nearly allied to Hypericinece than to Garciniea : whence it is no wonder,
Botanists who form such groups, should find it difficult to draw the line of distinction between
them and their nearest allies. The Clusiece appear in short to be rather a section of Hypencinea
than of Guttiferce, and their removal would certainly render the latter group more natural.
The next tribe Garciniece, the true Guttiferce, has binary or quaternary flowers, many celled
ovaries with solitary or very rarely several ovules, and an orange-like indehiscent fr.uit. This tribe
therefore is. more nearly allied to the Aurantiacece, but isi readily distinguished by their quaternary
not quinary proportion. . Professor Martius proposes uniting these two sections to form- the oyder
Garcinece, excluding the next tribe Calophylleae. , The separation of the. section Calophylleae
is certainly an improvement, but still leaves the anomalous combination of two sets of plants
differing so essentially in the same order; the one, having a quinary proportion of parts and
capsular dehiscent fruit, while the other has a quaternary proportion of parts and an indehiscent
fleshy one, merely on account of some similarity of habit. . . . ...
The third tribe, combined to form this order is the Calophylleae, trees associating in habit
and in the binary arrangement of their floral envelopes, but haying a drupacious 1 -2 celled ovaiy,
with one or several ovules, and a I or several seeded fruit, and differing so much in other respects
as to form but an indifferent union, which, as already observed, Professor Martius proposes to
amend by the elevation of this section to a distinct order.
The fourth and last section, Symphonieae, of Choisy and DeCandol'le’s arrangement is
also objectionable for the same reasons as the preceding, viz., its quinary proportion, besides
which Canella, one of the genera referred to it, has alternate leaves. The stamens in this tribe
are united into a tube as in Meliaceae, but differ from that order in the extrorse dehiscence
of the anthers, and in so far might perhaps be advantageously separated from both to form a
new order, the more so, as their properties are totally different from either; those of Canella
alba one of the tribe, being intensely aromatic. Species presenting differences so marked no
Botanist would ever think of combining in the same genus, and I cannot understand on what
principle genera, in which they occur, should be admitted into the same natural order, since,
such combinations can only tend to prove the futility of the name by setting natural affinities
at defiance.
On the principle of preserving simplicity of character, and at the same time conformity
to that character among the genera referred to the order, I propose, though closely allied
in habit, to separate the genus Stalagmilis or Xanthochymus from Guttiferce. A binary
arrangement of the parts of the flower, (2 and its multiples) forms the essential characteristic
of the order, 2-4-6 sepals and petals, 2-4-6-8 carpels or cells of the ovary, &c. but in Xanthochymus.
a quinary one prevails, 5 sepals and petals, 5 fascicules of stamens a 5, or by abortion 3,
celled ovary, form the characteristics of that genus.
The want of uniformity between the characters of the genus and of the order is here most
striking, and is such as to render it next to impossible for any one unacquainted with the genus
to refer it, by its characters, to the order in which it is placed. To such anomalies much of the.
difficulty attending the study of the natural system of Botany is owing. Giving due weight
therefore to characters derived from the number and arrangement of parts, it follows, that this
genus must be removed from the order, and referred to some one in which a quinary arrangement
prevails, such as Hypericinece, or be made the type of a separate order. To me the former
course seems the preferable one, since the only point, of difference between the characters of
the genus and the order, consists in the solitary ovules of the first, which in the last are usually,
though not always, numerous, and in the structure of the embryo which partakes more of the
character of Guttiferce than Hypericinece. In both a quinary order of parts exist, in both the filaments
are united, forming androphores, and in both,we finda5-celled ovary, with occasionally definite
ovules. In a word the genus is much more closely allied, to Vismice in its characters, than
to any tribe of Guttiferae, and to that section of Hypericineae I think it ought to be removed.
On the principle here insisted upon, that no genus be admitted into the order in which a
binary order of parts is not found to exist throughout the whole floral organization, it follows,
that the order as constituted by both Cambessides and Meisner, its most recent expositors, must be
entirely broken down, and the portion left to bear its name, reduced within very narrow limits. As I
have not Cambessides’ memoir to refer to, I follow M eisner’s exposition of his (Cambessides) distribution
of the order. Here Choisy’s tribes are retained, but some of the genera transposed—Mesua
for example, one of Choisy’s Calophylleae, is removed to Clusieae, and though strictly binary in its
structure, is placed between two genera, in which the quinary proportion prevails. Gynotroches
a genus of Blume, allied in many respects to Garcinia, and certainly I think referable to the same
section in a natural distribution of the order, is placed somewhat artificially, in Symphonieae,
and in direct opposition to the original character of that tribe which is to have the stamens
united into a tube. To Garcinieae the genus Stalagmilis, including Roxburgh’s Xanthochymus,
and the larger half of Choisy and DeCandolle’s genus Garcinia, (a most incongruous assemblage)
is referred, in place of to Calophylleae, in which it and Xanthochymus had been placed
by Choisy. Calophylleae thus shorn of three of the four genera originally referred to it still
remains, and to supply the place of those removed, two others, which have, since the publication
of Choisy’s memoir been added to the order, viz., Kayea, Wall, and Apoterium, Blume, are
given.
In these remarks I have confined myself to the Indian genera of the order, with
which only I am well acquainted, but, judging from the characters of some of the American
ones placed here, I cannot but think that most of them ought to be excluded, and
the order limited in a great measure to Asiatic species, and I feel but little doubt, when it
has been subjected to a thorough revision, that such will be the result. Hitherto, it seems to