16 NEILGHERRY PLANTS.. 
ABELMOSCHUS.—Bandikai. 
Calyx 5-toothed, spathaceous, deciduous, surrounded by a 5-10-leaved often very caduceous involu- 
eel. Ovarium 5-celled; cells with many ovules. Style 1, 5-cleft atthe apex. Stigmas 5. Capsule 5- 
celled, 5-valved, loculicidal, polyspermous. Seeds naked.— W. and A. Prod. 
The few plants of this genus, known to De Candolle, were incluied by him in the genus Hibiscus 
but referred, along with many other true species of Hibiscus, to his Section Abelmoschus. Subsequent authors 
have not adopted this arrangement. The genus was originally proposed by M. Medicus in 1787 a treatise on 
Malvacee : reduced by D.C. in 1824, and again revived by Dr. Wallich in the letter text of his splendid Plant. 
Asiatice Rariones with reference to a very handsome species figured by him in that work 4 nder the name of 
Bamia, (on the plate) a M.s.s.name of Mr. Brown, (in the Banksean Herbarium) whose authority leaves no 
doubt as to the future stability of the genus. 
lt now includes upwards of 30 species from India, the Eastern Islands, Cape of Good Hope, New 
Holland and South America. They are for the most part prickly annuals or biennials, rarely stirubs with 
alternate bistipulate petioled, entire or palmately lobed, serrated leaves : axillary, solitary, one-flowered pe- 
duncles and large, usually, yellow flowers. 
The plant here figured was some years ago ‘published by Dr. Zenker in his Indian plants under 
the uame of Hymenocalyz, in allusion I suppose to its delicately membranous calyx, which lies concealed 
within the large rough foliacious involucel, until artificially brought to light, owing to the latter splitting, 
spath-like, along one side only. This structure isso different from what we find in the other species of 
Abelmoschus, that reconsideration inclines me somewhat to recede from an opinion I formerly expressed in 
regard to the unsuitableness of separating this asa distinct genus. It certainly sufficiently aceords with 
Abelmoschus in most other points, which is adverse to its complete separation, but at the same time, it occurs 
to me, so great a difference ought to be marked by making it the type of asection or subgenus. Wale 
pers in his Repertorium Botanicum, apparently iufluenced by similar views, has referred our Lebritonia 
procumbens to Pavonia from which it only differs in having a foliaceous 5-leaved involucrem in place of one 
having from 5 to 15 filiform or subulate leaflets. For these reasons I here correct our former error, by rais- 
ing this plant to the rank of a subgenus, and making it the type of a section, distinguished by having a spa- 
thaceous iavolucrum enclosing the calyx and tube of the corolla. The involucrum is composed of from 3 to 5 
cohering leaves, the flower dissected by the Draftsman seems to have had four, as that is the number shown 
in the plate. The membranaceous sepals cohere like the leaves of the involucrum and burst irregularly. 
ABELMOSCHUS (HYMENoCALYX) ANGULOSUS 1s a considerable, erect i a 
(Wall:) stems herbaceous, not prickly: leaves on quent in mvist soil in pe ay growing, shrub, fre 
long petioles, cordate, 5-lobed, unequally toothed; gherries : in fay 
urabie sitnations 
obes ovate acuminated ; upper side pubescent with streams, attaining the hei Ay Spam op rye - 
short softish hairs, under slightly tomentose : pedicels is to be met with in flower at all seasons. but athe . 
rigidly and horizontally hairy, about as long as the in greatest perfection during the earlier ten ar 
petioles: involucel 3-5 leaved, leaves cohering split- year, contrary to méieral chatacters ak. the 
ting spath-like: calyx much shorter, and concealed genus the flowers are white or very pale yellowish 
within the involucel, membranaceous: capsnle ovoid, I have altered that part of oar andeihe chavacies 
acute, very hispid.—W. and A. Pred. P. 53. which refers 
XII.—ELMHOCARPE. 
Botanists differ in opinion as to the propriety of keeping up this order distinct from 
Tilliacee to which, if distinct, it is assuredly very nearly allied, so near indeed, that I feel dis- 
posed to adoptEndlicher’s views in considering it a suborder of Tilliacee from which it main- 
ly differs in having fimbriated petals, and in the stamens opening transversely across the 
apex in place of longitudinally. Distinctions such as these seem scarcely worthy of the dig- 
nity of Science, when unaccompanied by strongly marked natural characters. These certainly, 
are not wanting in the present instance, but seem scarcely sufficient to enable this tribe to be 
kept up as a distinct family. 
