on the Hortus Malabaricus, Part III. i 91 
which he was followed by Burman (FV. Ind. 51.), who added to 
the synonyma the Bancalus of Rumphius (Herb. Amb. iii. 84. 
fab. 55.). Now in this plate there are two figures ; of which the 
first represents (setting aside the errors in the direction to the 
plate) the Bancalus mas et parvifolia, which may perhaps be con- 
sidered as the same with the Katou Tsjaka, although this is by 
no means clear. Without any attention to the fact of two plants 
being figured in tab. 55 by Rumphius, and laying aside his - 
usual accuracy, M. Lamarck quotes the Bancalus (tab. 55.) for 
his Cephalanthus chinensis (Enc. Meth. i. 678.), leaving it doubt- 
ful whether or not the Nauclea orientalis is different; but he 
does not quote the Katou Tsjaka. Afterwards M. Poiret does 
not diminish the confusion by giving us a Nauclea orientalis, for 
which he quotes the Cephalanthus chinensis, the Cephalanthus of 
Linnæus, and Bancalus of Rumphius with doubt, while he refers 
the Katou Tsjaka to his Nauclea citrifolia (Enc. Meth. iv. 435.), 
distinguishing this from his N. orientalis by its having the pe- 
dunculus shorter than the flower; while in his N. orientalis this 
member is much longer, as represented by M. Lamarck (Til. 
Gen. t. 153. f. 1.). Still later, M. Poiret endeavours (Enc. Meth. 
Sup. iv. 63.) to point out differences between his Nauclea orien- 
talis and Cephalanthus chinensis, which is the Nauclea purpurea 
of Roxburgh and Willdenow (Sp. P/. i. 928.). Now all this 
seems wrong: for the Katou Tsjaka is the Nauclea orientalis or 
Cephalanthus foliis oppositis of Linnæus ; and the Nauclea citri- 
folia, like this having a short pedunculus, is the real Nauclea 
orientalis ; while the N. orientalis figured by M. Lamarck must 
be considered as a new species, and from the size and shape of 
its leaf might be called N. citrifolia, were it not for leading into 
error. Besides, before we can safely refer the N. purpurea or 
Cephalanthus chinensis to the Bancalus (tab. 55.), we must know 
whether the first or second figure of Rumphius is meant. Neither 
N 2 can 
