226 Dr. Francis Hamilton's Commentary 



vibus emicat, stylum parvum cum globulo (germen), viridi 

 dilute, ex quo prodit, in se recondens." Now the decem den- 

 ticuli may not mean antherae, as perhaps M. Lamarck con- 

 cluded, but divisions of the nectarium, the antherae being con- 

 cealed within the nectarium, as is usual in the genus Agtiili- 

 cia, in which Jussieu {Gen. Plant. 294.) includes the Nalugu. 

 M. Lamarck afterwards heard {Enc. Meth. iii. 460.), that on a 

 comparison of the plants in the collection of Linnaeus the Aqui- 

 licia samhiicina was found to be the same with the Leea aquafay 

 which, having simply pinnated leaves, may be the Nalugu ; but 

 it cannot be either the Staphylea indica of Burman, or Frutex 

 nquosus fxmina of Rumphius ; for these plants are probably not 

 the same. If, therefore, by mistake Linnaeus described the same 

 plant under two names, it remains to be ascertained whether he 

 described the Nalugu foliis pinnatis or the Staphylea indica foliis 

 hipinnatis; for the two plants are evidently distinct; and, on 

 account of their unarmed stems, they are also quite different 

 from the Aralia chinensis. As, however, M. Lamarck justly ob- 

 serves, this reported discovery in the Linnaean Herbarium was 

 probably a mistake, as long since the author of the Hortus Kew- 

 ensis (ii. 50.), well acquainted with the Linnaean Herbarium, de- 

 scribes the Leea (or Aquilicia) samhucina and L. cequata as both 

 growing in the Royal Garden, although he quotes none of the 

 authorities above mentioned (Enc. Meth. Sup. i. 410.). 



Notwithstanding what Jussieu and Lamarck had said, Will- 

 denow continues to place the Nalugu among the sjmonyma of the 

 Aralia chinensis caule petiolisque aciileatis; but this, as I have said, 

 is evidently a mistake. 



On the whole, I think it most probable that the Nalugu is the 

 Leea cequata ; and Leea is now generally considered as the same 

 genus with Aquilicia, some preferring one name and some the 

 other {Enc. Meth. Sup. iii. 327.)- I suspect, however, that Royen 



and 



