have been considered a convenient receptacle for all manner of refractory plants, having #oppo-
site entire polished leaves, and square branches, however much they may depart from the characters
of the order in the form and structure of the organs of re-production.
According to the arrangement I have proposed the Asiatic portion of the order, all that I
undertake to investigate, might be thus distributed.
G uttiferæ. Floral envelopes ranged in a binary order, (two and its multiples).
Suborder 1st — Garcinieae—Ovary 4-6-8 or more celled: cells, usually .with one, rarely several
ovules attached to the inner angle of the cell next the axis of the fruit. Style short or wanting.
Stigma spreading, lobed; lobes corresponding in number with the cells of the ovary, blowers
axillary, solitary, or fascicled, peduncles I-flowered, very rarely more. Garcinia, Gynotroches.
Suborder 2d.—Calophylleae—Ovary 1-2 celled: ovules solitary, or several, attached to
the base, ascending. Style elongated. Stigma radiato-peltate. Peduncles axillary, I-flowered,
or racemose, or forming terminal panicles.
This suborder may again be divided into two sections, or might perhaps be advantageously
removed altogether to form a distinct order, on account of the difference observed in. ■the ovary
and fruit, but for the present I, in accordance with all former practice, Professor Martius excepted,
allow it to remain as a section of the order.
_Mesueae—Ovary 2-celled: ovules several in each cell. Peduncles axillary, 1-flowered—
Mesua.
2d.—Calophylleae—Ovary 1-celled: ovules solitary or several, erect. Flowers racemose,
or panided—Calophyllum, Apoterium, Kayea. -----
The genus Xanthochymus I exclude from the order on account of the quinary arrangement
of its flowers, and for the present refer it to Hypericineae, as being the order most nearly
akin in which that structure prevails. It may be objected to this proposal, that many of the
Hupericineae have quaternary flowers, but then, the ternary or quinary fascicles of stamens,
and the 3 or 5-celled ovaries show, that that is not their normal structure, but the effect ot
abortion of parts. Taking number therefore as the basis of our classification, we can no longer
experience the difficulty which has hitherto been felt in distinguishing the species referable to
one or other of these orders, and however closely allied in all other respects, this character
alone preserves a clear and well marked line of demarcation between them. -
If the precedent established by Dr. Graham in the formation of his genus Hebraaen-
dron be followed, we may, I fear, soon expect to see the off-sets from Garcinia about■ as
numerous as its species now are, since that genus is separated on account of a variation m a
single point of structure, and without reference to analogous forms met with m other species.
The only point in which it differs from Garcinia, as defined in our Prodromus is— m having
1-celled circumcissile anthers—while the more usual form in that genus is to have them two
celled, with introse longitudinal dehiscence. Should this be considered a satisfactory reason
for its* removal, then G. Kydiana Roxb. which has a four-sided connectivum with a pollimrerous
cell in each face, must equally be separated from the genus, as well as another species ot
which I possess specimens from Mergui, the anthers of which are 1-celled, dehising transversely
across the apex. Another variation of structure which has been long observed in a tew
species of the genus will equally demand separation, as being of at least equal generic value, l
allude to those in which the stamens of the male flower are united into four thick fleshy andro-
phores, with a highly developed sterile pistil in the centre. Here then, assuming that we are
justified in assigning generic value to such variations of structure, limited as they are to the
male organization, are four distinct genera, and all, so far as such artificial characters can ma e
them, equally stable. I confess that I have an objection to this kind of excessive sub-division,
in as much as, whatever rule holds good with respect to genera must equally apply to ordei ,
and must inevitably lead to the elevation of half Our present species to the rank of genera, an
an equal proportion of genera to natural orders; both of which might be avoided by a sug
extension of our characters, and still better by a careful and comprehensive investigation
eroups of allied species and genera, before attempting their disunion in the formation ot n
genera and orders. In support of these views I think I may safely cite the recorded opinion
the first living authority Mr. Robert Brown. I-Ie says in a letter to Dr. Graham referring to
the plant which has called forth these remarks, " In your plant the structure of the anther is
indeed very remarkable and might well induce you to consider it a new genus; but it is right
to add, that approaches to this structure, and which serve to explain its analogy with the ordinary
structure of the family exist in Garcinia, with which I suppose your plant would agree in
its female flower as well as in fruit.” From this concluding caution I imagine that, before establishing
a genus on such grounds, he (Brown) would have ascertained the structure of the
anther in the whole order, marked its variations, and then, and not till then, have determined
on the propriety or otherwise of assigning a generic value to its variations : and I can scarcely
avoid thinking, that had such a course been followed in that instance a sectional value only would
have been awarded. I confess that a less perfect examination of the order, than that which
improved materials has now enabled me to effect, led me into a similar error, on which occasion,
I proposed to subdivide the genus Garcinia into three distinct genera: Mangoslana, Cambogia,
andStalagmitis (see Madras Journal o f Science, vol. 4, page 304). This suggestion has not
so far as I am aware been yet adopted by any one, and I trust it will not, as 1 now consider it
wrong in principle, the variations in structure, there pointed out, not meriting a higher than sectional
value in a genus so strictly natural. Influenced by this reduced estimate of the relative
value of the several structural variations mentioned above, it is my intention on the present occasion
to keep the old genus together, but divided into sections in accordance with them. I am
induced to do so from observing that the variations are limited to the male flowers, and do not
on,any occasion extend to the female. For example G. Mangostana and G. cornea, are referred
to the same section, the former has 4-8 celled ovaries, and the latter usually 4, in G. Kydiana,
Roxburgh describes the berry as being from 4 to 8 seeded, G. cowa from 6 to 8, and most of the
others are described as having as far as 4, or 8 seeds, showing a general want of uniformity in
this respect, variations, therefore, of the number of the cells of the ovary, cannot be admitted as
generic, or even specific value in this genus. Should further acquaintance with the tribe show
that in uniting Hebradendron or rather Cambogia, Lin. (for they are the same genus and the
latter the more appropriate name) to Garcinia, I have erred, the error can be easily corrected
and in the mean time, my sections will afford the means of more easily determining the known
species, and of referring to convenient places such new ones as may be discovered. For the
present, nothing is more difficult than to make'out from description the species of Garcinia.
This is mainly owing to the male flowers, which afford by far the best specific characters,
being too little attended to in characterizing them. Generally speaking, they are dioicous,
and in collecting specimens care should be taken, to procure them of both sexes. The foliage,
except in a very few instances, do not afford good discriminating characters, and when it does
is usually accompanied by others which are more to be relied upon.
The following is the arrangement which I propose for the distribution of the species of
Garcinia.
Subgenus 1. Mangostana. Male: Stamens 4-adelphous, andropbores, thick and fleshy,
covered on all sides with anthers. Ovary rudimentary, supporting a large capitate, glabrous,
abortive, stigma. Female—Stamens few, irregularly fascicled, usually imperfect. Ovarv 4-8
or 10-celled. . 3
| I. Anthers oblong, 2-celled, dehiscence', longitudinal introrse.
§ II. Anthers flattened above, \-celled, dehiscing by a transverse slit.
Subgenus 2. Oxycarpus* Male: Stamens monadelphous, androphores short, thick, fleshy,
placed in the centre of the flower, usually 4-sided, anthers numerous, sessile or sub-sessile, capitate,
with or without a sterile pistil—Female : Stamens 12-20, frequently imperfect, fascicled
or monadelphous, forming a ring round the base of the ovary—ovary superior, 4-8 or 10-celled.
§ I. Anthers 4 sided, with a polliniferous cell on each side.
Cambogia would have been the more appropriate name for this subgenus, but the original Cambogia gutta having recently
een re-elevated to the rank of a genus under a new designation I have thought it better not to employ that name lest, abler
tanists differing in opinion from me, should think that species generically distinct from Garcinia, in which case, Linnaeus’s
name ought to be restored.. ’