BY R. T. BAKER. 519 



C. obovata R.Br., differs, more especially in its leaf characters, 

 as well as in the form of its fruits; the inflorescence, however, is 

 similar. 



The timbers of all the above show scarcely any distinct specific 

 differences. 



In shape and reticulation of leaf C. fve.tida approaches more 

 nearly C. Mackinoniana F.v.M., and in botanical sequence it 

 should perhaps come between that species and C. obovata R.Br. 



Meissner's C. Cunningha7nii is only a slightly larger-liow^ered 

 form of the typical C, yiaucescens; and the same author's C. 

 Moretoniana has shiny leaves and a finer reticulation, features 

 that do not appear in G. fcelida. 



Apart from the other systematic characters above enumerated, 

 the fruits are quite unlike those of any other described species. 



It might also be added that it was not until the material had 

 been compared with that at Kew Gardens Herbarium that I was 

 prepared to describe it as new. 



Eco7iomics. — Timber not seen to any size, but most of the 

 Cryptocaryas are famed for their hard, durable wood, and this 

 one probably is no exception. 



One of its economics is worthy the attention of the apiarist, 

 for Mr. Bauerlen writes concerning the tree : — " The flowers have a 

 very offensive odour, but are nevertheless very much visited by 

 bees, wasps, and other insects." 



I have to acknowledge my indebtedness to Sir William 

 Thiselton-Dyer, K.C.M.G., &c., &c., Director of the Royal 

 Botanical Gardens, Kew, for his kindness in giving me free 

 access to the Kew herbarium and the use of the material there 

 for comparison. 



EXPLANATION OF PLATE XXX. 



^ Cryptocarya foetida, sp.n. 



Fig. L — Twig showing inflorescence and leaves. 

 Fig. 2. — Bud (enlarged). 

 Fig. 3.— Expanded flower (enlarged). 

 Fig. 4.— Fruit. 



