58 NOTE ON PLATYNEMA. 
the Natural Order Malpighiacee: our only specimen was obtained from 
the Madras or Missionaries’ herbarium, and the accompanying label 
led us to suppose it had been collected in Ceylon. I have not received 
the same from Ceylon, from either the late Colonel Walker or from 
Dr. Wight, since we first described it, and I have, therefore, had 
occasionally some doubts as to its being indigenous there, if, indeed, 
there had not been some error as to the specimen having ever been 
grown in Ceylon at all. 
A few days since, having been requested by a friend to look over and 
put generic names to his set of Lobb’s collections of plants, I was 
both surprised and gratified to find No. 474 to be precisely my plant : 
it was collected by Mr. Lobb in Malacca. As to the genus, it is 
placed by M. Adr. de Jussieu, in his memoir on the Malpighiacee, 
among those whose position is uncertain; but from analogy he pre- 
sumes the combined style to be a simple one, the other two being 
abortive, and that it ought to be placed next .4eridocarpus. In 
describing the style as composed of three united, I intended to convey, 
that the same structure occurred here as in the allied Hiptage. Jussieu 
concedes to this last and to Tristellateia a perfectly simple style, 
arising from one only of the carpels, the other two styles being 
abortive; but although he assigns plausible reasons for such a structure, 
. I confess I am not satisfied that such is the true one ; at least, I do 
not well understand how fertilization can be effected in the three carpels 
if one only has a perfect style and stigma. Any one who is in pos- 
session of Lobb’s No. 474, and who will take the trouble of glancing 
over Jussieu’s figures of the genera in the work above mentioned, will 
at once see that it is a species of Tristellateia; nor, perhaps, is it 
specifically distinct from T. Australasica, a, Rich. (I have not, however, 
access to that work, where it is figured), which has been found in New 
Guinea, a latitude not differing much from Malacca. With the other 
species, which are all from Madagascar, I am still entirely unacquainted. 
~ A mistake has sometimes occurred, either in the numbering of 
Lobb's plants, or in the names assigned to them by M. Planchon, 
in the 5th and 6th vols. of the ‘London Journal of Botany.’ Thus in 
his list, vol. vi. p. 472, Nos. 294 and 295 are both called species of 
= Solanum; in the set I have looked over, these numbers are both. 
. Rubiacee, and species of Argostemma. No. 331, in the same way, 
-is not an “ Uncaria,” but precisely the same as No. 279, and a species 
of Urophyllum, perhaps U. glabrum. 
1 
