40 THE CAMPHOR-TREE OF SUMATRA. 
stances which it produces, gives us the conviction that Mr. Colebrooke - 
must have had specimens of this tree ; we are not, however, certain of . 
the correctness of his figure. 
The leaves seen by us differ from those of Miller's specimens, which — 
we saw in 1850 in the British Museum (which are much larger), and 
from those of Colebrooke's drawing and description; the largest leaves 
of the latter being 0,175 long and 0,05 broad. But this difference is — 
perhaps explained by ours being smaller, because they are on flower- | 
bearing branches. They most resemble the description given by — 
Houttuyn. 
Most authors speak of stipules (Colebr., Korth.). We have not seem — 
them, and suppose that our specimens have lost them; we must there — 
fore refer our readers to what the two last-mentioned botanists have 
written on the subject. girs 
The calyx has many modifications in the form of its base and wings, 
as well as in the direction of those wings, which are sometimes nearer … 
to each other, or more modified or reflexed. The great diversity which — : 
we have observed in our specimens persuades us that there is no reason — 
for accepting more species. Colebrooke has seen and drawn objects in 3 
full growth. In the different states of development in which we saw 
this calyx, we always found natural cavities in its tissue, chiefly in the : 
woody part. In the interior it is resinous, and emits a smell of - 
turpentine. : E 
We have not space for further descriptions of the crown, the stamens, — 
and the fruit, The albumen seen by us was in some of Marsden’s - 
specimens in the British Museum, preserved there in spirits: it agrees — 
entirely with the figure and description given by Gartner. In the . 
specimens at our disposal, which were not preserved in spirits, the — 
albumen was consumed. For these specimens we are much indebted — 
io the liberality of Mr. Robert Brown. Through lack of young speci- - 
mens, the structure of the ovary has been till now but imperfectly . 
known. The reason is that naturalists have not had the opportunity = 
of getting specimens at the time of the development of the flowers. 
— Dryobalanops Camphora, Colebr., must be the plant mentioned by — 
Grimm, ten Rhyne, Valentyn, and Rumphius. It is the same as that — 
mentioned by Miller, and which M. Radermacher presented to Hout- 
tuyn. It belongs, undoubtedly, to the same genus as Gærtner has - 
. represented as Dryobalanops, but it is doubtful what he means by his - 
