MB. G. BENTHAM ON INOCARPUS. 149 
With regard to Efaballia, there are still some points of affinity 
and nomenclature to clear up. Dr. Sagot, in his active and scientific 
explorations of French Guiana, found near Karouany a tree sup- 
plying a hard wood, called Boco in the country, and which, from 
this name and from the station, he concludes to be the Bocoa prova- 
censis described and figured by Aublet (Pl. Gui. Supp. 38, t. 391), 
from specimens without flower or fruit. Dr. Sagot's specimens 
are in fruit, showing with certainty that they belong to Legumi- 
nose. He had not seen the flowers; but the foliage and inflores- 
cence, of an unusual description in that order, are so nearly those 
of Etaballia, that he suggested that the two might be at least 
congeners, if not of one and the same species, and in that case 
Aublet’s older name should be preferred. A further comparison, 
however, throws some doubt even as to their generic identity. In 
Etaballia the ovary is sessile and very villous, and the funiculus 
exceedingly short. In Bocoa the youngest fruits we have are 
perfectly glabrous and shortly stipitate; the ovules, even those 
which are not at all enlarged, are borne on a filiform funiculus at 
least three times as long as themselves ; and as the seed enlarges, 
this funieulus lengthens in a most remarkable manner, folding 
itself and coiling backwards and forwards round the outside of 
the seed, so as almost to enclose it. Until therefore we have seen 
the flowers of Bocoa and the fruit of Etaballia, it is most prudent 
to maintain the two genera as distinct. 
Again, as to the name Efaballia, Sir R. Schomburgk, in his 
later expeditions, learned that it was not this tree, but a species of 
Vochysia, which the natives named after the cataract. These 
errors as to native names are so frequent that their use in 
botanieal nomenclature ought to be restricted to very exceptional 
cases; but, in the present instance, if Etaballia does not merge 
into Bocoa, the rule of priority—one of the most important. to 
maintain in botanical nomenclature—would require the retention 
of that name, notwithstanding the probability of its original incor- 
rectness. 
The following are the technical characters of the three genera, 
independently of those which are common to all Cesalpinie:. 
l. INocanPus. Forst. Char. Gen. p. 65, t. 33. Calyx tubuloso-cam- 
panulatus, 2- rarius 3-lobus, lobis rotundatis. Petala 5, basi in tubum 
coalita, supra calycem libera, linearia, subzequalia, imbricata summo 
intimo, apice corrugato-involuta. Stamina 10, filamentis in tubum 
corolle adnatum alte coalitis, alterna longiora; anthers consimiles, 
