% 



ILLUSTRATIONS OF INDIAN BOTANY. 



139 



4 



In addition to the above, It only remains for me to remark that generally tliey exhibit a 

 decided prediliction for sub-alpine forests, which may in some degree account for their non- 

 appearance on the African continent ; the interior mountains, having been as yet imperfectly 

 explored and the same fact will, I think, account for so few having as yet been found in Ceylon 

 and the Southern Provinces of India. Linnseus only knew one Indian species of the order, 

 his Samara Iceta^ De Candolle only 9 in 1833, and now my Herbarium has about 20 species, 

 figures of 10 of which I have published. 



Properties and Uses, On this head little is known, the fruit of some of the species 

 possess considerable pungency and it is said, that those of Emhelia ribeSy which resemble black 

 pepper are occasionally used to adulterate that article. The fruit of a species of Samara are 

 called in Tamil 'DeviPs pepper' indicating its possession of pepper-like properties. 



Dr. Royle mentions that the fruit of Embelia robusfa and Myrsine bifaria^ are esteemed 

 gently purgative by the inhabitants of that part of the country where they are indigenous. 

 Upon the whole it appears, so far as present information extends, that they are deficient in active 



properties, 



i 



Remarks on Gekera and Species. The order is divided into three very distinct groups 



McBsece 



EmbeliecB 



ovary superior : corolla polypetalous — and ArdisiecB ovary superior : corolla monopetalous. The 

 first of these contains one genus, the second two, Embelia and Samara (Choripetalum, D. U), 

 and the third 18, six of which have Indian representatives. Of these six, two only, Myrsine and 

 Jrdisiay so far as I am aware have been found in the southern provinces. These are distin- 

 guished at first sight by their inflorescence, in the former fascicled along the branches, in the 



latter more or less distinctly panicled or thyrsoid. 



The genus Samara (Lin.), has long been an enigma. Dr. Arnott lately cleared up the 

 doubts which hung over it by an examination of the original specimen. The genus was origin- 

 ally established on a specimen now actually existing in the Linnean herbarium, and was well 

 defined, but the author, at the same time, quoted as a synonym, a figure which had no relation- 

 ship with the plant before him. The plate being well known, but not the specimen, it in course 

 of time came to be quoted as the authority for the genus and the original specimen of the plate 

 being subsequently examined was found not to correspond with the generic character. This in 

 place of suggesting the suspicion that Linnaeus had merely committed an error in his synonym, 

 was held as a proof that no such genus as he defined existed, and on that supposition A. De C, 

 constructed his genus Choripelalum which, as shown by a comparison of the two generic 

 characters, is identical with Samara, hence the latter, being the older name, must be retained 

 to the exclusion of the other. 



EXPLANATION OF PLATE 145. 



1. Jirdisia polycephda (Wall.), flowering branch, nat 

 size, 



2. Flower-bud ready to expand* 



3- Expanded flower. 



4- Corolla detached and split open, showing the sta- 

 mens opposite the lobes of the corolla- 



5. Anthers back and front views. 



6. Calyx and ovary. 



7. Ovary detached. 



8. Ovary cut vertically showing the free central 



placenta. 



9. . cut transversely. 



10, A mature fruit. , , . .^ v* 



11, The same cut transversely showing the solitary 

 seed* and remains of numerous aborted ovules; the 

 embryo lymg transversely across a copious horny albu- 

 men. 



12, Embryo detached. 



T 



