362 Dr. Arnott on the Genus Rhizophora. 



tion from African specimens. Guillemin and Perottet quote 

 De CandohVs specific character, * pedunculis 2 — 3-floris, pe- 

 tiolo longioribus," whence it appears to coincide in these re- 

 spects with the more common American form. From the 

 great general affinity, however, between the Senegambian 

 plants and those of East India, I would rather have supposed 

 the mangrove of the west of Africa to be allied to the next 

 species, but the leaves are said to be obtuse. 



2. R. mucronata, Lam. ; foliis ovalibus longe cuspidatis, calycis laciniis 



triangulari ovatis. — R. mucronata, Lam. Enc. Meth. vi. p. 169; ill. 



tab. 396. jig. 2. DC. I. c. ; Decaisne in Ann. Sc. Nat. n. s. iv. p. 75. — 



R. Mangle, Lin.1 (ex parte). Roxb. Fl. Ind. ii. p. 459. Blum. en. PI. 



Jav. i. p. 91, (excl. syn.). — R. candelaria, Wall. Cat. n. 4878. Wight, 



etAm. Prod. FL Penins. I. 0. i. p. 310, (non DC). Wight. Cat. n. 1041. 

 Hob. in insulis Mauritio, Madagascar, Ceylano, et Java, in Arabia Felice 



prope Yemen (Bove, n. 230), Malabaria, ad ostia Gangis, ac verosi- 



militer in aliis multis India? orientalis maritimis. 



When the inflorescence is more divided, the pedicels are 

 conspicuous ; when reduced to three or five flowers, they are 

 usually very short. The specimens described by Roxburgh, 

 and those sent me from Quilon, belong to the latter form ; 

 those from some other parts of the peninsula have the pedun- 

 cles as much and as loosely divided as in Lamarck's figure of 

 the Mauritius plant. I have not seen a sufficient number of 

 both to enable me to ascertain if they be distinct varieties, or 

 if this difference be only accidental ; the pedicels, although evi- 

 dent, are usually shorter and thicker than those of R. Mangle. 



This species takes the place of R. Mangle in India, and is 

 principally distinguished from it by the curious bristly point 

 of the leaves, formed not by the mere excurrent portion of 

 the midrib, but by a sudden contraction of the leaf itself. I 

 consider Lamarck's plant to be the same as the Indian one, 

 notwithstanding that Lamarck does not describe the petals, 

 for what Poiret seems to take for them are the calyx-seg- 

 ments : in the e Illust. des Genres', the whole figures are not 

 explained ; and it is not improbable, that what is represented 

 at letter g are the petals incorrectly split to the base, but 

 showing their ciliated margins. The Indian species does 

 grow in the Mauritius, which confirms this supposition ; and 

 I have seen none but it from that island. 



