A GENUS OF THE SIMAltUBACEJE. 140 



» 



this very curious genus. On examining the vegetable products 

 in the Brazilian collections sent to the Paris Exhibition of 1867, 

 partly under my charge, I noticed a singular fruit preserved in 

 alcohol, numbered 438 in the Trench Official Catalogue, p. 75, a 

 specimen contributed by Seiiores Souza and Almeida from Para, 

 and ticketed " Marupa ou Simaruba "; and among the samples of 

 wood was one from the same contributors, marked " Marupa M and 

 " Pao pombo," so called because the fruits of this tree are eagerly 

 devoured by w T ild pigeons. 



The solitary, oblong, gibbous fruit is very little smaller, but 

 of the same shape as that of Samadera indica, described and 

 figured by Gsertner*. Both are essentially alike in structure, 

 though very different in their development : in Gsertner's plant 

 the pericarp is very thick, homogeneously integral, and subcoria- 

 ceous ; while in the Para fruit it is disintegral, being separated 

 into a very thin pergamineous bladder-like epicarp and a distinct 

 pellicular endocarp, the intermediate space being filled with a 

 copious mucilaginous mesocarp. 



In 1866, I noticed in the Ann, Sc. Nat. 5th ser. vol. v. p. 85, a 

 memoir by Senh. Netto describing a Brazilian plant in flower only, 

 which I take to be congeneric with the Marupa of Para ; it is 

 called by him Odina Francoana, and known to the natives by the 

 name of Pao pombo : it has male flowers only, its fruit being un- 

 known. It is evident that it cannot belong to Odina, as that 

 is a Terebinthaceous genus near Semecarpus, and as its species all 

 belong to India or Africa. The floral details given by Senh. Netto 

 quite correspond with the characteristic outlines of the Simaru- 

 bacese, so clearly defined by St.-Hilaire (Mem. Mus. x. p. 137) ; 

 and from the evidence before us we may safely conclude that 

 Netto's plant and the Para Marupa are congeneric. Under this 

 conviction, the following diagnosis is elaborated. 



* < 



De Fructibus/ vol. ii. p. 352, tab. 156 c. This genus, so well illustrated 

 by Gtertner, is congeneric with the Aruba of Aublet, who figures the solitary 

 fruit in a very incipient state of growth, and is very different from the Sama- 

 dera of most botanists, which is the Zwingera of Schreber, whose numerous spe- 

 cies really belong to Quassia. Samadera proper has been quite misunderstood 

 by all botanists up to the present time, and is only explained in Gartner's 

 analysis. The Samadera, Simaba, and Simaruba of Planchon are ill-defined by 

 him in his review of the Simarubacese (Lond. Journ. Bot. v. p, 560), His 

 Simaba cedron (Kew Journ. Bot. ii. p. 377, tab. xi.) is probably the type of an 

 undescribed genus allied to Samadera. 



