Acacia. — LEGUMINOSAE. 273 
sence of prickles on the petioles affords no distinctive character, as both states 
may be seen on the same specimen: thus the only difference between A. Ca- 
techu and A. polyacantha is done away. Roxburgh in his fl. Ind. separates 
the A. Catechu of the “ Cor. plants" under the name of A. catechuoides, while 
he describes and figures a Bengal plant as the true A. Catechu, but although we 
have the figures and descriptions of both before us, we cannot find out the 
least difference, the stamens in the Peninsular plant being as distinct at the 
base (not monadelphous as Roxburgh says) as in the Bengal one. Roxburgh 
describes another allied species which he calls 4. Suma (to which we are dis- 
posed to refer A. Sundra, Wall. L. n. 5227, a, c, and perhaps d), and quotes 
under it, we think erroneously, A. polyacantha of Willdenow: it principall 
differs from A. Catechu by the bark being white, while in A, Catechu it is 
usually dark brown. 
843. (2) A. Sundra (DC.:) arboreous, every where glabrous: branches 
armed with compressed decurrent recurved stipulary prickles, sometimes en- 
tirely unarmed: leaves bipinnated ; pinnæ 15-20 pair, with a gland on the pe- 
tiole below the lowest pair and between the extreme pairs ; leaflets 20-40 pair, 
small, linear, obtuse : spikes 1-3 together, axillary, peduncled, shorter than the 
leaves, cylindrical, many-flowered : corolla 5-cleft: stamens very numerous, 
distinct, legumes flat, thin, lanceolate, few-seeded ; sutures straight or occa- - 
sionally emarginate between the seeds.—DC. prod. 2. p. 458; Spr. syst. 3. p. 
143; Wall. L. n. 5227 (partly); Wight! cat. n. 572, 607, 608.—A. chundra, 
Willd. sp. 4. p. 1078.—Mimosa Sundra, Roxb. Cor. 3. t. 225; fl. Ind. 2. p. 562. 
This species is extremely like A. Catechu, and affords also the resin Cate- 
chu; it principally differs by being perfectly glabrous. The prickles are some- 
ames absent on one branch, and present on another, of the same tree; and 
even this difference may be observed on different parts of a single specimen. 
844. (3) A. ferruginea (DC.:) arboreous, armed with conical stipulary 
thorns, occasionally unarmed: branches diffuse : leaves glabrous, bipinnated; 
pinnz 3-6 pair, with one gland on the petiole and one between each of the 
1-2 extreme pair ; leaflets 10-20 pair, oblong-linear, obtuse: spikes axillary, 
usually in pairs, cylindrical, many-flowered: corolla 5-cleft : stamens nume- 
rous, slightly united at the very base: legumes flat, lanceolate, obtuse, hard, 
2-6-seeded.— DC. prod. 2. p. 458; Wall.! I. n. 5226; Wight! cat. n. 596, 
606.— Mimosa ferruginea, Roxb. / in herb. Sm. ; fl. Ind. 2. p. 561; in E Lt. 
mus. tab. 494. Circars; Roxburgh. Courtallum. S : 
“ Bark deeply cracked, of a dark rusty colour, and strongly astringent. — 
Roxs. The legumes are also rust-coloured. 
845. (4) A. latronum (Willd.:) somewhat arboreous, armed ; thorns nu- 
merous, stipulary, very large, terete, tapering, united at the base: leaves bi- 
pinnated ; pinnee 3-5 pair, with a gland on the petiole ; leaflets 6-15 pair, 
very small, narrow linear, obtuse, without any glands between the pairs: 
spikes axillary, usually in pairs, peduncled, cylindric, longer than the leaves, 
many-flowered : corolla 4-5-cleft: stamens numerous, distinct: legume flat, 
thickish, oval-faleate, 3-4-seeded.— Willd. sp. 4. p. 1077 ; DC. prod. 2. p. 460 ; 
Spr. syst. 3. p. 142 ; Wight ! cat. n. 603.—A. umbraculifera, Wight! in Wail. ! 
L. n. 4245.—Mimosa latronum, Koen. ; Linn. suppl. p. 438 (as to the descr., 
but not the spec. char.) ; Roxb. fl. Ind. 2. p. 558; in E. I. C. mus. tab. 
1724.—M. cornigera, Linn. ! suppl. p. 438. nM ud 
We feel quite certain that the name /atronum, with the station and all the 
description sent by Koenig, and published in the Supplementum Plantarum, 
refers to M. cornigera of the same work (not of Linn.), and not to the spe- 
cimen preserved in the herbarium of the younger Linneeus, and from which 
he drew up his specific character. We have therefore retained the specific 
name by which the plant is at present known. As to the specimen from 
which the specific character was taken, we suspect it may not have come 
from Koenig at all, and that the general habitat attached to ** M. cornigera 
8 
