on the Hortus Malabaricus, Part IV. 193 
SCHINUS SAHERIA. 
Ben Kalesjam. Hort. Malab. iv. 71. t. 34.? 
Saheri Hindice. 
Habitat in Magadhe sylvis. 
Arbor magna, ramulis crassis tomentosis. Folia alterna, cum impari pinnata. 
Foliola 5—7-juga, opposita, petiolata, oblonga, acuminata, integerrima, 
supra nisi ad nervos nuda, subtus pilosa, costata, venis minute reticulata; 
lateralia costis posterioribus abbreviatis subsemiovata ; terminale basi 
acutum. Petiolus communis basi incrassatus, subangulatus, pubescens, 
mediocris, non stipulaceus. Rachis ad foliola nodosus, angulatus, pubes- 
cens.  Petioli partiales, utrinque incrassati, canaliculati, pubescentes, 
brevissimi, terminali czeteris duplo longiore. 
Panicule in ramulo novo infrafoliacez, vel ex axillis foliorum inferiorum, folio 
breviores, angulatz, pubescentes. Ramuli alterni, breves, subquinquefidi, 
id est bis bifidi, bifurcatione primaria florifera. Bractec vix ullae. Flores 
parvi, herbacei. 
Calyx minimus, quinquefidus, concavus, disco decemcrenato tectus; crenis 
alternis latioribus, dorso emarginatis. Petala quinque ovata, pubescentia, 
patula, ungue lato perigyna, calyce alterna, crenis disci latioribus opposita. 
Filamenta decem disci margini inserta, basi lato subulata, petalis breviora, 
quinque petalis opposita ceteris paulo longiora. Anthere cordate. Ger- 
men ovatum disco immersum. Stylus nullus. Stigma obtusum, pilosum. 
The tree above described was probably a male; nor did I either see female 
flowers or fruit; but the latter is said to be an esculent berry. It flowers in 
spring; but the Saheri, which I saw in November, had “foliola serraturis 
magnis remotis incisa." I do not think, however, that on this account we can 
venture to consider it as a distinct species; and the circumstance connects it 
more fully with the Ben Kalesjam, and the plants described under the name 
of Garuga. It must be observed, that in the figure of Rheede none of the 
leaves are represented with a terminal leaflet; but the three lower leaves are 
evidently broken off to allow room for the painter, and the uppermost even is, 
I suspect, imperfect. It is this circumstance, however, which has made me 
quote the figure with doubt. 
