21^ 



ILLUSTRATIONS OF INDIAN BOTANY. 



indeed the composition of the involucre in all the three 

 genera. In Symphorema and Spenodesme it is composed 

 of 2 opposite bracts, each furnished with two somewhat 

 smaller bracteoles: each leaflet bearing a sessile, axil- 

 lary flower at the base, and a single flower in the centre, 

 without a fulcrum. In Congea one of the bracteoles of 

 each bract aborts, while the opposite, contiguous pair 

 often unite, reducing the four parts to three, giving the 

 appearance of a 3-phyllous involucre,. 



In the numerous specimens of both Symphorema and 

 SpKenodesme^ I have examined, I have always found the 

 involucre 6-phyllous, and only once (No, 1478), with 

 fewer than 7 flowers and never more. In Congea^ the 

 involucre is four- or, by the union of the 2 bracteoles, 

 recluced to 3-phyllous, with from 5 to 7 flowers; that is, 

 a flower to each leaflet, and a central odd one unsup- 

 ported, or two to each bract, one to each bracteole and 

 the odd one. Both Roxburgh and Schauer describe the 

 glomerulus of Congea as 6-9-flowered, I have not yet 

 met with more than 7, nor fewer than 5 in any glome- 

 rulus, of either of the three species I have examined, 

 thence infer that the statement has originated rather in 

 loose generahzation, than actual and careful counting to 

 determine the point* 



Does the composition of this involucrum throw any 

 light on the vexed question of leaves and stipules of 

 GdiacetBy or in any way tend to clear up the difficulty 

 there experienced in determining what are leaves and 

 what stipules ? 



The umbellate inflorescence and characteristic invo- 

 lucre, seem of themselves to constitute this, at least, 

 a peculiar tribe, if not a separate order; but when to 

 these are added the semi-one-celled ovary and remark- 

 able placentation, approaching that of MyrsineacetB^ and 

 the farctuose seed, nothing seems wanting to justify its 

 elevation to the dignity of a tribe : it is my impression 

 even an order, amply distinct from true Verhtnactm. 

 As a tribe, the structure of the ovary and placentation 

 place it between ViiicerB and Amcenne(E^ as it cones- 

 ponds with that of the latter, viz., "Ovula in loculo 

 gemina, ex apice axeos pendula amphitropa," and to 

 that extent is more nearly allied to the latter, than to 

 the former, in which Schauer places it as a subtribe. 



The following abbreviated essential characters of the 

 genera I had prepared before Schauer's Monograph 

 reached me, and as they differ slightly from his, I intro- 

 duce them. To complete the Illustrations of the tribe, 



I have given the analysis of Symphorema volyandrum, 

 in No. 1474. 



Symphorema. Involucre 6-phyllous, 7-flowered. Cor- 

 olla regular, many-cleft; segments inflexed in astiva- 

 tion. Stamens equaling the number of lobes of the 



corolla, alternate with them. 



Spheivodesme. Involucre 6-phyllous, 7- rarely 3-flow- 

 ered. Corolla sub-irregular, 5-lobed, imbricate in asti- 

 vation. Stamens 5, inserted on the throat of the corolla, 

 alternate with its lobes, shortly exserted. 



CopjOEA. Involucre 4- or, by union of the lateral 

 pair, 3-phyllous, 5-7-flowered. Corolla bilabiate, upper 

 hp much produced, S-parted, imbricate in estivation. 

 Stamens 4, didynamous, long, exserted. 



Congea. (Roxb,) 



L 



When naming the subject of 1472 I had not seen 

 Schauer's Monograph, He, I find, reduces C. villosa^ 

 Roxb., and C azurea^ Wall,, referring both to C. tomtn- 

 tosa, Roxb. I am unable to say how far he is correct 

 in considering C. villosa and azurea identical, not having 

 an authentic specimen of the former, but I certainly 

 cannot coincide with him in combining C azurea and 

 tomentosa, which I consider quite distinct, and there- 

 fore presume he has fallen into error through the imper- 

 fection of his materials. To prevent, as far as I am able, 

 the extension of the confusion likely to arise from this 

 accidental error, I have determined to give a figure of 

 C. tomentosa for comparison with Wallich's C azurea^ 

 the drawing of which is taken from an authentic speci- 

 men. To these I add one of what I now consider a 

 new species. The plants from which the drawings are 

 made may be thus briefly distinguished: 



C azurea (Wall.), leaves elliptic, acute, or sub-mucro- 

 nate at the apex, slightly hispid above, softly velutino- 

 pubescent beneath: leaflets of the involucrum obovate, 

 oblong, sub-cuneate towards the base, softly velutino- 

 pubescent on both sides: umbels 5-7-flowered: calyx 

 teeth narrow, lanceolate, acute. 



C. tomentosa (Roxb.), leaves ovate, slighly cordate, 

 acute, or sub-acuminate ; hispid above, tomentose 

 beneath: leaflets of the involucre oval, obtuse at both 

 ends, tomentose above, softly pubescent beneath : umbels 

 7-flowered, calyx teeth short, blunt. 



C velutina (R. W.), leaves ovate, acuminate, glabrous 

 on both sides, coriaceous, leaflets of the involucre obo- 

 vate, spathulate, dilated and cohering at the base, form- 

 ing a cup in which the flowers are seated, velvety on 

 both sides; umbels 5-flowered: calyx teeth very snort, 

 obtuse. 



In all these I find indications of the compound nature 

 of the third leaflet of the involucre, but in one specimen 

 of the last, there are several instances of the bracteoles 

 remaining permanently distinct, as shown in Fig. 2. B. 

 Plate 1479, thus clearly explaining what might other- 

 wise have remained a conjectural inference. 



AvicEJNKiA. (Linn.) 



This genus associates with Symphoremeae in the 

 character of its placentation, but diflfers in the seed. 

 Much uncertainty seems to exist among Botanists as 

 to the limits of its species. Walpers has 2 species, but 

 assigns to one of these no fewer than 7 distinguishable 

 varieties; Asia, Africa, America, Australia and the 

 Philippine Islands, each contributing to the list. The 

 two plants here figured are considered by him identical, 

 not even varieties. Blume has not given figures of 

 his plants, hence I presume their supposed identity. 

 Schauer in his Monograph describes 4 species, distri- 

 buted under two sections, viz. : 



1. ^^Donatia^ stylus manifestus, post corollse lapsum 

 e calyce exsertus. 



2. ^^TJpata, stylus sub-nullus, stigmata in vertice, ovarii 

 fere sessilia." 



He, like Walpers, refers both to the same species, 

 which he calls Ji, officinalis, and places it in the 2d 

 section along with A. tomentosa, which name he restricts 

 to the American plant. On the correctness or other- 



