.. following sentence, which I quote from Dr Graham’s pa 
330 REMARKS ON CAMBOGIA GUTTA, 
truth the only plant of the genus in Ceylon, having sessile - 
verticelled flowers. In his generic character he describes - 
the anthersasanthere subrotunde, the pistil germen subrotundum — 
striatum, stylus nullus. Stigma quadrifidum persistens, —and 
finally the pericarp—Pomum subrotundum, octies sulcatum, 
octoloculare,—showing clearly that the character of the flower 
and ovary is taken from one species, and of the fruit froma 
different one (or perhaps from Rheede’s figure), owing to — 
the imperfection of his specimens, and his not being aware — 
that the lobes of the stigma afford a sure indication of the 
number of cells of the fruit. His Cambogia, however, if we dis- : 
regard this error, is certainly the Gamboge plant of Ceylom — 
which is further established, as Dr Graham informs us, by the 
examination of the specimen in Herman’s Herbarium, “which 
may be considered the type of Linnæus Cambogia Gutta.” — 
If, therefore, that plant is to be elevated to the rank of a — 
genus, I should say his name ought unquestionably to be — 
retained with an amended character, and botany relieved 
from the unseemly allusion conveyed under the new one. 
If Murray's Stalagmitis is on account of priority to supplant : 
Roxburgh’s Xanthochymus, much more must Linneus’ Cambo- 
gia supplant Graham’s Hebradendron; partly for the same 
reason, priority, but principally, because Dr Graham knew. 
when he gave the name that his plant was identical with 
that of Linnzus; while it is almost impossible that Roxburgh 
could ever recognise his Xanthochymus in Murray’s charactet 
of Stalagmitis, made up as it is from two genera (Garena 
and Xanthochymus) so distinct as not to be referrible even ! 
the same Natural Order. In my opinion, Stalagmitis ought 
to be suppressed, and Xanthochymus retained?” ^ ——— 
~ The allusion to Stalagmitis in this passage refers to the 
("It appears 
