MR. G. D. HAVILAND: REVISION OF THE NAUCLEES. 5 
(1803), was labelled Sarcocephalus esculentus by Afzelius perhaps 
as early as 1798 ; but the name Sarcocephalus was not published 
till 1818 in Tuckey's * Congo’ (Append. by R. Br. p. 467), nor 
was there any description of it till 1824, when Sabine described 
it in Trans. Hort. Soc. v. p. 422. The nearest Asiatic plant to 
this Sarcocephalus esculentus is the No. 53 of Linneus’s * Flora 
Zeylanica, the first type of his Nauclea orientalis, the Nauclea 
cordata of Roxburgh. It was Korthals, in 1839, ‘Obs. de Naucl. 
ind., who first separated this Nauclea cordata ou account of 
the ovaries being combined, and put it into a genus Platano- 
carpum, the relationship of which to Sarcocephalus he pointed 
out, at the same time he founded the genus Mitragyna. It was 
he, therefore, who was responsible for the removal from the 
genus Nauclea of most, if not all, of its types. Miquel in 1856 
united Platanocarpum to Sarcocephalus. 
It was in 1834 that Anthocephalus was separated from Nauclea 
by A. Richard, Mém. Soc. Hist. Nat. v. p. 236; and Korthals 
accepted his genus. There can be no doubt as to the species 
which Richard had before him when deseribing Anthocephalus 
indicus. Unfortunately his synonymy was most erratic: he 
says (p. 327) that Anthocephalus indicus= Cephalanthus chi- 
nensis, Lam.,— Nauclea purpurea, Roxb. ; he even went so far us 
to say that the plant he examined was an authentic specimen of 
Cephalanthus chinensis, Lam. ; but a comparison of his description 
with that of Lamarck's will show at once that the plauts are 
wholly different. 
A specimen of Breoniain the Paris Herbarium still has attached 
to its sheet sections of the fruiting-heads of Anthocephalus 
indicus, a label on the left “Cephalanthus chinensis, Lmk., fide 
herb.,” and a label on the right “Nauclea purpurea, Bomb., Pl. 
Corom. i. 41, tab. 54; Flor. Ind. ii. p. 123; DC. Prod. iv. 346. 
Cephalanthus chinensis, Lamk. Dict. i. 678. Inde ? Ile de France 
? Herb. de Cummerson.” 
Richard's description of his plants is good; but his synonymy 
seems to have been written at random and regardless of con- 
sequences. It has been copied from author to author, causing the 
utmost confusion. Walpers, Repert. ii. p. 491, has hybridized 
the names Anthocephalus indicus and Cephalanthus chinensis and 
produced Anthocephalus chinensis, a name which is also quoted 
by Hasskarl. Korthals described Anthocephalus indicus again 
as A. morinde@folius, believing it to be identical with Blume's 
