Meliacee.) THE HIMALAYAN MOUNTAINS, . 14] 
the Melia Azedarach, or Persian lilac, Hill margosa of Dr. Ainslie, mentioned by Dr. 
Roxburgh as being a native of China, &c.; the other species, is one, which has by 
Dr. Roxburgh been considered the same as the American M. sempervirens of Swartz, 
and both by some authors accounted only varieties of M. Azedarach; The Indian plant no 
doubt very closely resembles this both in inflorescence and foliage, but may be easily 
distinguished by its larger berries and extremely hard pentagonal nut, covered with a 
sweetish viscid sarcocarp, which, on drying, assumes a semi-transparent appearance, like 
that of soap-berries; the leaves also in my specimens are longer, the pinne more nume- 
rous, and the leaflets more membranous and less serrated. This is universally distinguished 
in the northern provinces of India from Melia Azedarach or dek, by the Hindoostanee 
name bukayun or bukain, of which the synonimous Arabic name given is ban, the Persian 
azad-i-durukht, and the tree said to be a native of Persia; its Synonymes, moreover, 
in the northern provinces of that country are also given. It is probable, therefore, that 
this, if not exclusively, at least in conjunction with Melia Azedarach, is the Azedarach 
of Avicenna. Dr. Roxburgh also states the bukayun to be a native of Persia, though 
common throughout India, and that its Arabic name is ban. This, in addition to the 
specimens in the East-Indian Herbarium, perfectly identifies his’ plant with that of 
Northern India. The Sanscrit name of maha-nimba, or great neem, corresponds rather 
with its appearance in the northern than in the southern provinces of India, where Dr. 
Roxburgh describes it is as a small delicate evergreen of short duration, perfectly distinct 
from Azedarach. He considers it, however, the same as Melia sempervirens of Swartz, 
mentioning that plants reared in the Calcutta Botanic Garden, from seed received from 
the West Indies, did not in any respect differ from the Asiatic sort. Having con- 
sidered the subject as settled, I regret that I did not pay more minute attention to the 
plants in the living state; for on referring to an original specimen of Melia semper- 
virens from Dr. Swartz, in the late Sir James Smith’s Herbarium, it does not appear 
to me to correspond with that to which the same name has been applied in India, 
and which, I conceive, is a distinct spécies. This I would propose calling Aelia 
bukayun, easily distinguished ‘from MJ. Azedarach by its fruit, as MM. sempervirens is, 
according to Swartz, by being “ planta minor et sepe floret biennis, quod foliola lete 
_viridia raro plusquam 7, rugosiuscula, profundius et magis inequaliter serrata et 
acuminata.” The author of the Mukhzun-ool-Udwieh moreover describes four kinds of 
Neem, or Melia, as formerly constituted,—1. Neem; 2. Bukayun; 3. Dek; and the 
4th without a name, may perhaps be the Melia composita of the Peninsula, 
Mallea ( Ekebergia indica, Roxb.) is found at the foot of the Circar Mountains, and, as 
well as Sandoricum indicum, in the Peninsula. The species of Turr@a seem confined to . 
the Indian Islands, as T. pinnata, P|. As. Rar. t. 119, a native of Silhet, is mentioned with 
doubt as belonging to this genus. Of the tribe Trichiliege (abundant in South America, 
the islands of the Indian Archipelago, and extending to New Holland), we have also 
species in India, especially in the southern parts. Heynea trijuga, Amoora lara, and 
Spherosacme fragrans, Wall. (Aglaia decandra, Wall. F). Ind. 2. p. 427) extend as far 
north 
