on the HorUis Malaharicus, Fart Hai'i 229 



quinquelobo, obtuso, erecto. Petala quinque oblonga, 

 acuta, apice subcucuUata, unguibus tiibo staminifero ad- 

 nata. Tubus staminiferus turbinatus, petalis brevior, extra 

 sulcis quinque exaratus, ore inter sulcos quinquefido lobis 

 emarginatis. Filamenta quinque ex imis tubi sulcis enata, 

 apicibus intra tubi os incurva, petalis opposita. Anthera 

 intra tubum retroflexae, subcoalitae, oblongae. Germen su- 

 perum subrotundum. Stylus teres. Stigma simplex. 



The same structure of flower I have found in the Leea macro- 

 phylla of Dr. Roxburgh (Hort. Beng. 18.), and in the plant that 

 I consider as the Staphylea indica of Burman, which I sup- 

 pose is the Leea Staphylea of the Hortus Bengalensis {I. c), and 

 which Dr. Roxburgh considered as distinct from the Leea sam- 

 bucina, meaning probably by this the Frutex aquosa fcemina of 

 Rumphius, although he quotes neither Rumphius nor Burman 

 for either plant, deterred probably by the great confusion in dif- 

 ferent authorities. It may however be observed, that the parts 

 of the flower might be otherwise denominated, as thus : Corolla 

 monopetala. Tubus crassus, brevis, ad os coarctatum auctus 

 tubo staminifero turbinato extra sulcis quinque exarato, ore 

 quinquedentato, denticulis laciniis corollae alternis, emarginatis. 

 Limbus patens, quinquepartitus. Filamenta quinque laciniis co- 

 rollae opposita, ex apice tubi ad basin sulcorum enata. I had 

 an opportunity of comparing the fruit of the Leea macrophylla 

 with the description of the Aquilicia Otillis in Gsertner (De Sem. i. 

 275.), and found them exactly similar in structure. 



'S iKV Ri, p A5. Jig. 27- 



Commeline in comparing this to the Vitis Idcea is far from 



accurate ; and his observation is uncommonly defective, as he 



commences with saying, that the plant had not been previously 



described ; while he then says, that he cannot doubt of its being 



2 H 2 one 



