rous.—The leaves represented in plate 1912 belong Endlicher, presuming that he was satisfied
to tins species.
One species of Pierardia ( I am uncertain which)
is, when in full flower, a curious looking tree. One
that I saw on the Sisparah Ghaut had the whole
trunk of the tree covered with horizontal flower-
spikes nearly as close-set as the hairs in a bottle
brush; certainly to the full as close-set as those of
1912, but much shorter. I was prevented taking specimens
and never, therefore, ascertained the species,
though I fancy it must have been macrostachys. The
fruit described was sent from the Anamally forests,
but still without leaves.
* *—P. S.
1914. Tiglium Klotcheanum (R. W.), shrubby,
stellato-pubescent: leaves shortish petioled, ovato-
lanceolate, acuminate, acutely glanduloso-serrate,
coriaceous, with 2 depressed, peltate glands at the
base of the limb.
Travancore, Malabar.
This species, though so nearly approaching the
Croton Tiglium or Tig. officinale, in its written character,
seems to the eye very distinct. The whole
appearance of the two plants differs, and yet I can
find no satisfactory character's by which to distinguish
them, hence I fear they will ultimately prove
only varieties, unless the fruit prove such as to keep
them distinct. I may however remark, in passing,
that, though I have found the glandular disk very
distinct in this species, I have not found it equally
so in wliat I have always considered the true Croton
Tiglium, that represented in the Hort. Mai. 2-33,
which I now apprehend will be found specifically
different from Burm. Zeylan., tab. 90, which has more
the appearance of this plant and seems to be the one
described by Dr. Klotch.
1915. Croton L acciferum (Linn., Croton aroma-
ticum, Willd., Spreng., Aleurites lacciferum, Wild.,
Rottlera dicocca, Roxb. ? Rheede Hort. Mai. 5 tab.
23? Burm. Zeyl. 91. Rumph. 3-127, usually quoted
for this, is not, I think, a Croton, and certainly does
not represent this one. Rumph. 3, 26 is lite r but still
does not represent this plant), “ leaves ovate, tomen-
tose, serrulate, petioled: calyx tomentose.” Lin. FI.
Zeylan.
My principal object in introducing this plant is to
aid in clearing up its complex synonyme by making
the plant itself better known. I t seems rather curious
that- the Ilort. Mai. figure has never before been
quoted for this plant, as it conveys a better idea of its
general aspect than any of the others quoted. The
objection to quoting it must I imagine have originated
in its dioicous character, giving it more the
appearance of Rottlera than Croton and, taking that
view of it, it might with much probability be quoted
for the male of Rottlera tinctoria, or at all events of
a Rottlera though possibly one still unpublished in
any modern system.
The plates of Rumphius have evidently nothing
to do with this plant; Burman’s, on the other hand,'
is certainly a form of it. Sprengel, I find in his
“ Cura posteriores,” reduces Linnajus’ C. lacciferum
to Willdenow’s C. aromaticnm! in place of reversing
the case and upholding the prior name.
Before closing my remarks on these two genera, I
may mention that I have adopted Klotch’s genus Tiglium
as distinct from Croton on the authority of
propriety of its separation before adopting it. For
myself, not having seen Klotch’s revised character
of Croton, I do not, so far as I can judge from the
materials before me, feel certain on that point. If
Tiglium is really justly separated from Croton, then
I shall not • be surprised to find that neither of the
two species I have referred to Croton is now admitted
into that genus. I f they still retain that name,
the genus Tiglium, it appears to me, might have been
dispensed with. But on that point, with my present
defective information, I cannot venture to express a
decisive opinion.
The rudimentary petals of the female flower of
C. lacciferum may perhaps have a higher value assigned
to them, when viewed in connection with the
whole genus, than I should deem necessary to attach
with reference to the small Indian branch with which
only I am acquainted.
P OEOSTEM ACEiE.
Of this small but curious order, very little was
known until within the last few years, and its affinities
are still very obscure, being one of those families
where analogies abound, but direct affinities are
scarce. In this small group, the three leading divisions
of the vegetable kingdom seem to meet. In
habit, place of growth, and cellular structure of many
of its species, it enters the Acotyledonous class: in
some of the Tulasneas I observed well-marked mono-
cotyledonous structure, while the seed is most distinctly
dicotyledonous. So far as yet known, none of
its species have petals, but three of its genera have
a sufficiently well developed perianth and free, more
or less numerous, stamens. All the others, 17 in
number, are deficient in that verticel, but, in its place
are furnished at the base of the pedicel with a spathe
more or less resembling the spathe so general in the
Aroideous family, so that, but for the dicotyledonous
seed, it would, if not actually enter, at all events
very nearly approach that order.
Since, then, the structure of its seed renders its reception
into a monocotyledonous alliance inadmissible,
in what dicotyledonous one can it find a suitable
location? To this question, much more accomplished
Botanists than I am, have hitherto failed in
returning a satisfactory answer, I will not therefore
make the attempt. Suffice it, therefore, to say, that
Lindley ( Vegetable Kingdom) places this very imperfectly
flowered order in his Rutal alliance, a highly
developed polypetalous group, including the Orange,
Magohany, Melia, Mango, Rue, &c., to my mind, a -
highly-strained and unnatural position. Gardner
takes a different view of the affinities. He conceives
Podostemons nearly allied to Nepenthes, an
order appertaining to the diclinous class, and which
Lindley places in his Euphorbia! alliance. This
seems to me a more suitable location than the other;
nearer affinities may yet be discovered, but, with
our present scanty stock of information only, to
guide us to correct conclusions, I think the diclinous
class is that in which its nearest relationships
will be found.
Twenty years ago only one Indian species of this
order was known; twenty at least are now known •
figures, more or less perfect, of 17 of which will be
found in the following plates; and there are other
three described and published, of which I have not
seen specimens. In addition to those introduced