Tas. 7471. 
PHALERIA ampigaua. 
Native of Java. 
Nat. Ord. ToymeL#acra.—Tribe PHALERIES. 
Genns Paaterta, Jack.; (Benth. & Hook. f. Gen. Plant. vol. iii. p. 199.) 
PuHaLeRIa ambigua; arbuscula scandens, glabra, ramulis teretibus fuscis, 
foliis breviter petiolatis ellipticis apice cuspidato-acuminatis base 
acutis, nervis utrinque ad sex, nervulis gracillimis, supra saturate 
subtus pallide viridibus, capitulis axillaribus et pseudo-terminalibus 
_ sessilibus multi-densifloris, involucri foliolis ovato-oblongis obtusis -viri- 
dibus, floribus albis flavo pallide suffusis puberulis, perianthii tubo 3- 
pollicari gracili superne vix ampliato, limbi lobis f oliisaribas late 
ovatis apice rotundatis, staminibus 8, filamentis filiformibus glabris v. 
ima basi puberulis lobis perianthii longioribus 4 fauci 4 ore corolle insertis 
erectis antheris parvis connectivo dorso glanduloso. 
Drymispermum ambiguum, Meissn. in DO. Prodr. vol. xiv. p, 605. Miquel 
_ Fl. Ind. Bat. vol. i. p. 886. ; 
D. lancifolium, Zoll. Cat. Verz. vol. ii. p. 117. 
The species of Phaleria are extremely difficult of dis- 
crimination, from Herbarium specimens especially, and the 
Javanese botanists have, in the magnificent Botanical 
Gardens and Herbarium of Buitenzong, the only full 
materials for the elucidation of its Malayan members. 
One has been figured in this work, P. lawrifolia, Benth., 
Tab. 5787, Drymispermum laurifolium (Decne.), from a 
plant received from the Botanical Gardens of Ceylon, and 
which came from Buitenzorg, under the latter name; 
though its correctness is far from satisfactorily established, 
as pointed out by Bentham in the “ Flora Australiensis ” 
(vol. vi. p. 38). P. ambigua, here figured, was sent, so 
named, to the Royal Gardens, Kew, from those'of Buiten- 
zorg in 1894, but it does not altogether agree with 
Meissner’s description of that plant, which has an eight- 
flowered head, and nine to fifteen pairs of nerves in the 
leaf, characters of relative importance probably, and not 
specific. In so far as I can ascertain from the published 
descriptions and Herbarium specimens, the plant here 
figured (whether or no rightly named) differs from all other 
Arrit Ist, 1896, 
