rous.— The leaves represented iii plate 1912 belong 

 to this species. 



One species of Pierardia (I am uncertain which) 

 is, Avhcn in full flower, a curious looking tree. One 

 that I saw on the Sisparah Ghaut had the whole 

 trunk of the tree covered with horizontal flower- 

 spikes nearly as close -set as the hairs in a bottle 

 brush; certainly to the full as close-set as those of 

 1912, but much shorter. I was prevented taking spe- 

 cimens and never, therefore, ascertained the species, 

 though I fancy it must have been macrostaclufs. The 

 fruit described was sent from the Anamally forests, 

 but still without leaves. 



Hf 3i( 



RS. 



1914. TiGLiuM Klotcheanum (R. W.), shrubby, 



stellato-pubescent : leaves shortish petioled, ovato- 

 lanceolate, acuminate, acutely glanduloso-serrate, 



coriaceous, with 2 depressed peltate glands at the 



ba^e of the limb, 



Travancore, Malabar. 



This species, though so nearly approaching the 



Croton Tiglium or Tig. officiriale^ in its written char- 

 acter, seems to the eye very distinct. The whole 

 appearance of the two plants differs, and yet I can 



find no satisfactory characters by which to distin- 

 guish them, hence I fear they will ultimately prove 

 only varieties, unless the fruit prove such as to keep 

 them distinct. I may however remark, in passing, 

 that, though I have found the glandular disk very 

 distinct in tliis species, I have not found it equally 

 so in what I have always considered the true Croton 

 Tiglium^ that represented in the Hort. Mai. 2-33, 

 which I now apprehend will be found specifically 

 diflferent from Burm. Zeylan., tab. 90, which has more 

 the appearance of this plant and seems to be the one 

 described by Dr. Klotch. 



1915. Croton Lacciferum (Linn., Croton aroma" 

 Ileum, Willd., Spreng., Aleurites lacciferum^ Willd., 

 Rottlera dicocca^ Roxb. ? Eheede Hort. Mai. 5 tab. 

 23? Bui-m. Zeyl. 91. Rumph. 3-127, usually quoted 

 for this, is not, I think, a Croton, and certainly does 

 not represent this one. Rumph. 3, 26 is liker but still 

 does not represent this plant), "leaves ovate, toraen- 

 tose, serrulate, petioled: calyx tomentose.'' Lin. Fl. 

 Zeylan. 



My principal object in introducing this plant is to 

 aid in clearing up its complex synonyme by making 

 the plant itself better known. It seems rather curi- 

 ous that the Hort. Mai. figure has never before been 

 quoted for this plant, as it conveys a better idea of its 

 general aspect than any of the others quoted. The 

 objection to quoting it must I imagine have origi- 

 nated in its dioicous character, giving it more the 



appearance of Rottlera than Croton and, taking that 

 view of it, it might with much probability be quoted 

 for the male of Rottlera tinctoria^ or at all events of 

 a Rottlera though possibly one still unpublished in 

 any modern system. 



The plates of Rumphius have evidently nothing 

 to do with this plant ; Burman's, on the other han^ 

 is certainly a form of it. Sprengel, I find in his 



u 



laccifi 



to WiUdenow's C aromaticum ! in place c 

 the case and upholding the prior name. 



Before closing my remarks on these two genera, I 

 may mention that I have adopted Klotch's genus Tig- 

 lium as distinct from Croton on the authority of seen specimens 



Endlicher, presuming that he was satisfied of the 

 propriety of its separation before adopting it. For 

 myself, not having seen Klotch's revised character 

 of Croton, I do not, so far as I can judge from the 

 materials before me, feel certain on that point. If 

 Tiglium is really justly separated from Croton^ then 

 I shall not be surprised to find that neither of the 

 two species I have referred to Croton is now ad- 

 mitted into that genus. If they still retain that name, 

 the genus Tiglinm^ it appears to me, might have been 

 dispensed with. But on that point, with my present 

 defective information, I cannot venture to express a 

 decisive opinion. 



The rudimentary petals of the female flower of 

 C. laccifeimm may perhaps have a higher value as- 

 signed to them, when viewed in connection with the 

 whole genus, than I should deem necessary to attach 

 with reference to the small Indian branch with which 

 only I am acquainted. 



PoBOSTEMACE^. 



Of this small but curious order, very little was 

 knovm until within the last few years, and its affini- 

 ties are still very obscm'c, being one of those families 

 where analogies abound, but direct affinities are 

 scarce. In this small group, the three leading divis- 

 ions of the vegetable kingdom seem to meet. In 

 habit, place of growth, and cellular structure of many 

 of its species, it enters the Acotyledonous class : in 

 some of the Tulasneas I observed well-marked mono- 

 cotyledonous structure, while the seed is most dis- 

 tinctly dicotyledonous. So far as yet known, none of 

 its species have petals, but three of its genera have 

 a sufficiently well developed perianth and free, more 

 or less numerous, stamens. All the others, 17 in 



number, are deficient in that verticel, but, in its place 

 are furnished at the base of the pedicel with a spathe 



more or less resembling the spathe so general in the 

 Aroideous family, so that, but for the dicotyledonous 

 seed, it would, if not actually enter, at all events 

 yery nearly approach that order. 



Since, then, the structure of its seed renders its re- 

 ception into a monocotyledonous alliance inadmissi- 

 ble, in what dicotyledonous one can it find a suita- 

 ble location? To this question, much, more accom- 

 plished Botanists than I am, have hitherto failed in 

 returning a satisfactory answer, I will not therefore 

 make the attempt. Suffice it, therefore, to say, that 



Lindley (Vegetable Kingdom) places this very imper- 

 fectly flowered order in his Rutal alliance, a highly 

 developed polypetalous group, including the Orange, 



Magohany, Melia, Mango, Rue, &c., to my mind, a 

 highly-strained and unnatural position. Gardner 

 takes a different view of the affinities. He con- 

 ceives Podostemons nearly allied to Nepenthes^ an 

 order appertaining to the diclinous class, and which 

 Lindley places in his Euphorbial alliance. This 

 seems to me a more suitable location than the other ; 

 nearer affinities may yet be discovered, but, with 

 our present scanty stock of information only, to 

 guide us to correct conclusions, I think the dicli- 

 nous class is that in which its nearest relationships 

 will be found. 



Twenty years ago only one Indian species of this 

 order was known ; twenty at least are now known : 

 figures, more or less perfect, of 17 of which will be 

 found in the following plates; and there are other 

 three described and published, of which I have not 



In addition to those introduced 



( 31 ) 



