86 Dr, Arnott on some nev) or rare Indian Plants, 



is not sufficient to distinguish Balsamodendron from the spe- 

 cies^we referred to the Protium, of Burmann^ and that the 

 principal character consists in the position of the torus or 

 disc. 



All the East Indian species which I have seen have the 

 calyx tubular-campanulate as in the Senegambia one {Heude- 

 lotia) and Commiphora of Jacquin, while it is broad and shallow- 

 in B. gileadense, and perhaps in the other two from Arabia : 

 but, as these last are not sufficiently known, I cannot avail 

 myself of that probable difference of structure to sub-divide 

 the genus into sections. The following is a synopsis of all 

 the species known : 



1. B. Berryi {km.) \ spinescens, foliis longiuscule petiolatis gla- 

 bris, foliolis 3 cuiieato-obovatis crenatis, terminali lateralibus 

 duplo majore, pedicellis unifloris brevibus, petalis calyce breviter 

 tubuloso subduplo longioribus, fructu apiculato. — Protium gi- 

 leadense. Wight et Am. Prod. i. p. 177 (excl. syn.). Wight, 

 Cat. n. 543.— Amyris Gileadensis. Uoxh. Fl. Ind. ii. p. 246 

 (excl. syn.). 



This was introduced to the Botanic Garden of Calcutta, by 

 Dr. Berry, of Madras, so that in all probability the plants 

 were obtained from the interior of the Peninsula, where it is 

 a native ; and not from Arabia, as Roxburgh supposed. 



2. B. Roxburghii (Arn.) ; spinescens, foliis petiolatis glabris, fo- 

 liolis 3, terminali ovali serrulato, lateralibus minutis, pedicellis 

 unifloris brevibus. — Amyris commiphora. Ro:vb. Fl. Ind. ii. p, 

 244. — A. Agallocha. Roa^b. ? Herb. Beng. p. 28. — Commiphora 

 madagascariensis. Jacq. H. Schoenbr. ii. t. 249 (fide Roxb.). 



Hab. in Silhet, Assam, &c. 



There can I think be little doubt of Commiphora being the 

 same with the present genus, but I feel less certain that C, 

 madagascariensis is the species described by Roxburgh. My 

 principal objection arises from the distance between the locali- 

 ties where the two are said to be indigenous. As, however, no 

 succeeding botanist appears to have received it from Mada- 

 gascar, Jacquin may have been accidentally led into an error 

 on that point. 



3. B. Wightii (Arn.) ; spinescens, foliis sessilibus glabris, foliolis 

 3 subsequaUbus cuneato-obovatis acute dentato-serratis, flori- 



