226 Dr. Francis HaurrTOoN's Commentary 
vibus emicat, stylum parvum cum globulo (germen), viridi 
diluto, ex quo prodit, in se recondens." Now the decem den- 
ticuli may not mean antheræ, as perhaps M. Lamarck con- 
cluded, but divisions of the nectarium, the antheræ being con- 
cealed within the nectarium, as is usual in the genus Aquili- 
cia, in which Jussieu (Gen. Plant. 294.) includes the Nalugu. 
M. Lamarck afterwards heard (Enc. Meth. iii. 460.), that on a 
comparison of the plants in the collection of Linnzus the Aqui- 
licia sambucina was found to be the same with the Leea æquata, 
which, having simply pinnated leaves, may be the Nalugu; but 
it cannot be either the Staphylea indica of Burman, or Frutex 
aquosus femina of Rumphius ; for these plants are probably not 
the same. If, therefore, by mistake Linnæus described the same 
plant under two names, it remains to be ascertained whether he 
described the Nalugu foliis pinnatis or the Staphylea indica foliis 
bipinnatis; for the two plants are evidently distinct; and, on 
account of their unarmed stems, they are also quite different 
from the Aralia chinensis. As, however, M. Lamarck justly ob- 
serves, this reported discovery in the Linnæan Herbarium was 
probably a mistake, as long since the author of the Hortus Kew- 
ensis (ii. 50.), well acquainted with the Linnean Herbarium, de- 
scribes the Leea (or Aquilicia) sambucina and L. equata as both 
growing in the Royal Garden, although he quotes none of the 
authorities above mentioned (Enc. Meth. Sup. i. 410.). 
Notwithstanding what Jussieu and Lamarck had said, Will- 
denow continues to place the Nalugu among the synonyma of the 
Aralia chinensis caule petiolisque aculeatis ; but this, as I have said, 
is evidently a mistake. 
On the whole, I think it most probable that the Nalugu is the 
Lcea æquata ; and Leea is now generally considered as the same 
genus with Aquilicia, some preferring one name and some the 
other (Enc. Meth. Sup. iii. 327.). I suspect, however, that Royen 
and 
