1870-71. Trewia NUDiFLORiE (Linn.), arboreous
leaves ovate oblong, acuminate, quite entire, glabrous:
male racemes long, pendulous: female flowers solitary
or paired, styles 3-4, long plumose.
An extensively distributed tre e : common about
Coimbatore on the banks of tanks and near water
courses, flowering during the hot Spring months.
The history of this plant is curious. I t was first
made known through the medium of an indifferent
figure in the Hort. Malab. (1 tab. 42). Linnseus thence
took it up and named it, but apparently without having
seen a specimen as his character is very faulty, and he
places it in his class Polyandria Monogynia. Burman
(FI. Indica) followed and, apparently being equally
unprovided with good materials, placed it in the class
and order Moncecia, Tetrandria, quoting Linn, and
Rheede. Willdenow, having got specimens, next described
it in a periodical publication, under the name
of Rottlera Indica. Subsequently, becoming aware
that his Rottlera was the Linnman Trema, he reduced
his genus and adopted the older one, but with
a slight error in thé generic character, “ masculi, cal.
3-phyllus.” In the interval, Gartner had obtained a
fruit, a figure and analysis of which he published, but
with the error of representing the seedexalbuminous!
Roxburgh, being well acquainted with this tree, gave
an amended and correct generic character, pointing
out Gartner’s error, by describing the embryo as
“ inverse and amply furnished with a perisperm”
(albumen). Endlicher omitted it altogether in the
body of his Genera Plant., but afterwards gave it in
his 3d Supplement. And Lindley, in the second edition
of his Natural System, misled I presume by
Gartner, made it the type of a new order, in which
he was followed by Meisner. Lastly, Dr. Klotch,
having obtained access to good materials, published
a revised character, showing that it was truly a
Euphorbiaceous plant, and has thus finally cleared
up the botanical uncertainties which had previously
attached to this very common tree.
In his generic character, Dr. Klotch describes the
calyx of the male flower as “ diphyllus foliolis pro-
funde bifidis.” I have not at this time (November)
recent flowers before me to determine this point, but
so far as it can be made out from dried ones, carefully
softened, I cannot make out that structure; the calyx
appearing to me distinctly 4-sepaied.
1872. H emic yclia sep ia ria (W. and A.), a
large ramous dioecious shrub, with alternate, elliptic,
obtuse, coriaceous, glabrous, leaves: axillary, usually
aggregated, longish pedicelled flowers: male flower
8-androus with 4 sepals: female subsessile, peduncle
afterwards elongating: ovary seated in a fleshy disk,
2-celled, crowned with 2 sessile, semicircular, stigmas
(hence the generic name), fruit drupaceous, globose,
one-seeded by the abortion of the other ovule: seed
somewhat lenticular, arilled at the base: embryo central,
cotyledons foliaceous, enclosed in copious albumen.
My specimens, which were obtained from the neighbourhood
of Tuticorin, are deficient in female flowers,
hence then* absence in the plate.
The wood of this shrub seems to be very hard and
close-grained, something like box.
1873. R ottlera peltata (R o x b .), arboreous,
leaveslong petioled, cordato-peltate, acuminate, downy;
racemes terminal and lateral, solitary (always ?), capsules
covered with villous filaments. Roxb.
Malabar, Neilgherries, and in sub-alpine forests
along the Ghauts, not unfrequent.
This plant corresponds in so many important particulars
with Roxburgh’s description, that I could
scarcely venture to give it a new specific name on
account of the discrepancies it presents while unacquainted,
except by description, with his plant.
Mine differs in its panicled terminal inflorescence, and
the rusty-brown colour of the pubescence on the
young shoots and under-surface of the young leaves.
That on the latter afterwards becomes pale, and in
some specimens whitish. The inflorescence is also
at first tawny but, like the leaves, becomes paler. The
stigmas in my plant do not quite correspond, “ styles
fths three-cleft, segments hairy; stigmas simple,” in
h is; in mine, the stigmas are large tongue-shaped and
plumose, but on the other hand the capsules “ covered
with pretty long hairy filaments” is a character so
marked and peculiar, combined in both with peltate
leaves, that nothing short of an inspection of original
specimens could set it aside. I have another species
with peltate leaves, but not otherwise corresponding.
The female calyx in both is 4-lobed, in mine the
number of cells of the ovary varies, three or four.
I have not seen ripe fruit.
1874. Croton umbellatum (Willd.), leaves ovate
oblong, acuminate, entire, glabrous on both sides:
flowers umbelled, terminal.
Courtallum, and elsewhere in sub-alpine jungles. I
am uncertain whether this shrub is a genuine number
of the genus as now defined, but it is certainly Will-
denow’s plant, as 1 possess original authentic specimens
thus named from Klein’s Herbarium.
1875. F luggea ieucopyrus (Willd.).
A common shrub in low stunted jungle, but so variable
that I apprehend there are more than one species
in India, though one only has yet been named and
described. On the Eastern slopes of the Neilgherries
a very distinct form occurs in great abundance, flowering
during the earlier months of the year, and
much more luxuriant than any I have seen on the
plains. I t is perhaps a distinct species, a point which
I regret to say I have never determined by careful
comparison. The plant here represented, corresponds,
in regard to the female flower and fruit, with Willde-
now’s description, but not with Roxburgh’s, as the
latter assigns three 2-cleft stigmas and a 3-celled
firuit in place of 2 two-cleft styles and a 2-celled,
fruit. If both are correct, it seems to imply that
there are two species.
1876. P utranjiva Roxbtjrghii (Wallich), leaves
alternate, narrow oblong, acutely serrulate: flowers
triandrous; filaments more or less coalesced: drupes
ovate.
Paulghaut Jungles.
The plant here represented I find accurately corresponds
with Roxburgh’s description, so far as my
specimens permit comparison, for, unfortunately, I
have not succeeded in finding the male tree. Dr.
Royle has published in his Illustrations of the Himalayan
Flora, figures, under the same name, of what
appears to me a distinct species. His plate represents
a tree with elegant drooping branches, entire,
somewhat elliptic, obtuse leaves; solitary female
flowers, and globose fru it: presenting altogether an
F