on the Hortus Malabaricus, Part IL. 229 
quinquelobo, obtuso, erecto. Petala quinque oblonga, 
acuta, apice subcucullata, unguibus tubo staminifero ad- 
nata. Tubus staminiferus turbinatus, petalis brevior, extra 
sulcis quinque exaratus, ore inter sulcos quinquefido lobis 
emarginatis. Filamenta quinque ex imis tubi sulcis enata, 
apicibus intra tubi os incurva, petalis opposita. Anthere 
intra tubum retroflexæ, subcoalitæ, oblongæ. Germen su- 
perum subrotundum. Stylus teres. Stigma simplex. 
The same structure of flower I have found in the Leea macro- 
phylla of Dr. Roxburgh ( Hort. Beng. 18.), and in the plant that 
I consider as the Staphylea indica of Burman, which I sup- 
pose is the Leea Staphylea of the Hortus Bengalensis (l. c.), and 
which Dr. Roxburgh considered as distinct from the Leea sam- 
bucina, meaning probably by this the Frutex aquosa femina of 
Rumphius, although he quotes neither Rumphius nor Burman 
for either plant, deterred probably by the great confusion in dif- 
ferent authorities. It may however be observed, that the parts 
of the flower might be otherwise denominated, as thus: Corolla 
monopetala. Tubus crassus, brevis, ad os coarctatum auctus 
tubo staminifero turbinato extra sulcis quinque exarato, ore 
quinquedentato, denticulis laciniis corollæ alternis, emarginatis. 
Limbus patens, quinquepartitus. Filamenta quinque laciniis co- 
rollæ opposita, ex apice tubi ad basin sulcorum enata. I had 
an opportunity of comparing the fruit of the Leea macrophylla 
with the description of the Aquilicia Otillis in Geertner ( De Sem. i. 
215.), and found them exactly similar in structure. 
NinunRiI, p. 45. fig. 27. . 
Commeline in comparing this to the Vitis Idea is far from 
accurate; and his observation is uncommonly defective, as he 
commences with saying, that the plant had not been previously 
described ; while he then says, that he cannot doubt of its being 
22 one 
