and on a new Genus of the Family Balanophoreze. 95 
Oss. L—1 have experienced considerable doubt in referring these plants to 
Balanophora. : 
In all my notes, especially those made while associated with Dr. Wallich, 
during the Tea Deputation into Upper Assam, I have considered them, from 
that botanist's suggestions, to be species of his Sarcocordylis, rather than of 
Balanophora. 
In M. Endlicher's * Genera Plantarum,’ the character of Balanophora, with 
the exception perhaps of that of the female, seems considerably different from 
that of the plants in question, which is rather that of Cynopsole*; but that 
genus, although its female flowers would seem to have been unknown, is 
placed in a tribe characterized. by having a bilocular ovarium! Indeed, up 
to the time of my reaching the Botanic Gardens, I had no grounds whatever 
for referring these plants to Balanophora, except a figure in Dr. Royle's * Ilus- 
trationsT,' which is stated to represent the Bal. dioica of Mr. Robert Brown f, 
a Nepalese plant referred by him to Balanophora in his memoir on Rafflesia $. 
My doubts, however, did not entirely end here; for in Forster's figure of Bad. 
fungosa, on which he founded the genus, the spikes are represented as bear- 
ing male flowers below and fernale above, a remarkable cireumstance; the 
receptacles would also appear to bear pistilla over their whole surface. Then 
again, so late as 1838, Dr. Walker Arnott represents a plant in Hooker's 
‘Icones Plantarum, which, excepting the apparent want of bracteze to the 
male flowers, and the appearance of the styles, perbaps to be explained by the 
adherence of pollen-grains, is evidently a congener of Mr. Brown’s Bal. dioica, 
and of the species I have endeavoured to illustrate. * This Dr. Arnott makes a 
Langsdorffia, a genus which appears to me sufficiently distinct from the Bala- 
nophora of Forster. | 
I have no later information regarding these plants, although probably Dr. 
Arnott has elucidated them in the ‘Annals of Natural History.’ I believe 
apparently not distinct from Bal. globosa, Jungh. in Nov. Act. Acad. Nat. Cur. vol. xviii. suppl 
p.210. t. 2; Bal. Indica, Herb. Wight (illustrated by Dr. Arnott in Sir W. J - Hooker's z on d 
tarum,” t. 205-6, and in the * Annals of Natural History,’ vol. ii. p. 36), is AER from ads poet 
lished species; and Bal. typhina, Wall. List, no. 7248, appears to be identical with Bal. picta, T 
above characterized.—Sxcn. 
* Genera Plantarum, 74. no. 719. 
} Illustrations of Botany, &c. p. 330. 
t Illustrations of Botany, &c. t. 99 or 78a. 
§ Linn. Trans. xiii. p. 227, in a note. 
