“ This species differs from the rest in having stami-
nodes, and the lobes_ of the perianth deciduous, by
which marks alone it agrees with Haasia media,
Blume. Perhaps it is the type of a distinct genus.”
—Nees.
The character of this genus is to have either hermaphrodite,
or unisexual flowers, 2-celled anthers,
and no staminodes : my plant has staminodes and hermaphrodite
or bi-sexual flowers : the staminodes
are large and conspicuous, flattened cordate at the
base, perforated with pellucid points giving them
quite a foliaceous appearance.
Nees describes the species as dioicous, and speaks
of the ovary as rudimentary in the male flowers; such
apparently is not the case in the flowers I examined.
I have another species from Ceylon so exactly corresponding
in appearance, that it seems impossible
to distinguish the two plants, but in it the staminodes
are wanting, hence it is a true Haasia which the
Continental one is not, in as much as it has parts not
present in the original species. There is another
plant in my collection, having much the habit of this
genus, and wanting staminodes, but in it the anthers
are 4-celled, showing that though it may belong to
the “ Tribe,” it can scarcely belong to the genus.
1832. Sassafras P arthenoxylon (Nees, Lauras
porreda, Roxb.), leaves somewhat triplinerved,
opaque: young corymbs terminal, appearing about
the period of the expansion of the young leaves (cor-
ymbulis terminalibus subanthesi foliolosis). Nees.
Native of Sumatra, Roxburgh.
The appearance of the figure, which is copied from
Roxburgh’s drawing in the Calcutta Botanic Garden,
does not quadrate with either the above specific character
or with Roxburgh's description. I extract the
following from Roxburgh’s description. “ Leaves alternate,
petioled, Veined, permanent, oblong, entire,
generally acuminate, firm, both sides smooth, the upper
polished, the under glaucous—3-6 inches long from
2-3 broad. Panicles lateral, scattered round the base
of the young shoots, below their tender foliage, solitary,
long peduncled, expanding, small, composed of
a few diverging branchlets. Flowers numerous, pedi-
celled, pale yellow, calyx border divided into six,
alternately rather smaller, oblong, obtuse, expanding
segments, which are somewhat hairy on the inside.”
The drawing differs in showing the floriferous branch
fully clothed with leaves, in other respects, it corresponds
with the description.
1833. Cylicodaphne Wigiitiana (Nees, Tetran-
thera Wightiana, Wall.), umbels racemose.
Neilgherries, Courtallum, &c.
A common rather large tree on the Neilgherries, at
an elevation of from about 6000 feet to the top of the
hills.
In this genus the flowers are dioicous. The male
flowers usually 6-cleft, with 12 stamens, the interior
six glanduliferous, extrorse and no staminodes. The
female ones have 6 glanduliferous staminodes. The
uncter surface of the leaves and racemes is clothed
with rusty-brown pubescence. Fruit glabrous, the
oerry half immersed in the cup-shaped truncated tube
of the perianth.
There is as yet only one other species of the genus,
a native of Java, which is distinguished by having
ie umbels closer together, hence “umbellelis spicatis,”
constitutes its specific distinctive character.
T etranthera .
This genus seems to require revision, since, as regards
the variations of floral structure, found among
the species now ranged under it, it appears rather
complex and heteromorphous. When engaged in preparing
the series of drawings for the elucidation of
the genera of this order, I was, under the pressure
of then existing circumstances, prevented going so
fully into its examination as I could have wished,
and have since done, otherwise I might have shown
this more clearly than I have done, but still I think
an examination of the plates appertaining to the
“ Tribe Tetranthereae,” will tend to lead others to the
same conclusion.
Compare for example the plates 1834 and 1835
with 1838, all of which are referred by Professor
Nees to the genus Tetranthera, and the difference
between the two first and the last will be at once
obvious. Compare again 1837 and 1838, which I
have associated as species of the same genus, and the
exact similarity will, I think, be equally obvious.
According to my views, the two sets of forms cannot
be associated under the same generic character,
otherwise than by constructing it so ioosely that almost
all the tribe might be admitted into the genus.
Contrast again this grouping with No. 1837, the
type of a distinct genus in which the real essential
character rests on the compressed or lamellar form
of the glandular appendages of the six interior stamens,
as contrasted with the thicker glandular form
of those of the other genera. “ Lepidadenia est genus
inter Dodecadeniam et Tetrantlieram versans, flore pro
familia eximio, diversum ab utroque laminis petaloi-
deis planis obtusis subsessilibus loco glanaularum
terga staminum interiorum obvailantibus, ita, ut
seriem quasi exhibeant petaiorum, stamina sex exte-
riora ab interioribus separantium.” This, as contrasted
with the other, is to my mind too narrow
a basis on which to establish a good genus.
_ To show this more clearly, I shall quote Nees’ essential
generic character of Tetranthera, under which he
ranges a series of 44 species, many of them departing
widely from the character. “ Tetranthera, anthers
4-celled, cup of the fruit discoid. Three interior stamens
biglandulose at the base. Leaves veined but
not coarsely reticulate (Folia venosa nec admodum
reticulata).” In his more extended character, he adds,
“ six gland-lilte staminodes attached by pairs to the
three interior stamens, either sessile or stipitate.”
. On to n in g to the species ranged under this generic
character, we find the four represented in plates 1834-
35-36 and 38, not one of which, curiously enough,
agrees with it. Then, as if to make the confusion
greater, we find at the head of the character of the
tribe, “ Staminodia nulla.” These discrepancies and
want of precision of language, in calling the stami-
nal appendages at one time glands, and at another
staminodes when no true .staminodes are present,
make this a most difficult group of species to study,
though, when properly understood, I see no reason
why it should be more so than any other, since they
are susceptible of as easy distribution into several
well-defined smaller groups or genera, according to
the views of the monographist.
The normal structure of the flowers of this order
is not difficult to understand, as the diagrams show,
and those of this tribe, with a few exceptions, do not
essentially depart from it. The exceptions are found
in plates 1834 and 35, and a few others in which the
D