Materials for a Flora of the Malayan Peidnsula. 19 



For. Flora Barm. I, 213) is probably identical. lu Roxburgh's original 

 descriptions of M. superha and M. robusta, he carefully states the differ- 

 eucek on which lie depends for tlieir sepax^ation. These are as follow: — 



M. superha. M. robusta. 



Leaves bi- tri-pinuate, 2 to 4 feet Leaves bi-pinnate, 12 to 18 in. 



long. long. 



Flowers small, dull white, with an Flowers small, white, inodorous. 



ofFensive smell. Bracts solitary, filiform and often 



Bracts small, lanceolate, caducous. very long. 



Sepals ovate-lanceolate, incurved. Sepals ovate-oblong. 



mealy. Staminal tube with the segments 



Staminal tube IQ-rihheA, hairy in- of its mouth minute and filiform. 



side, each of the ten teeth of the 



mouth divided inlo 3 4 or 6 short 



subuhite segments. 



Specimens of both trees were gTOwing in the Calcutta Garden when 

 Roxburgh described them, the one having been received from Sunda, 

 the other from Malabar. Roxburgh, of whose sagacity and judgment 

 o'le has a thousand examples, considered them as quite distinct, and it 

 would take a gnat deal more evidence than has been produced to make 

 me believe that they are conspecific. Tiie Malabar plant (3/. robusta) is 

 clearly the same as the Cejlon species which has since been identified 

 with M. composita, Willd., Sp. Plantar. IT 669. I cannot however agiee 

 to the view, first put forward by Mr. Hieru, that M. composita Willd. 

 phould be reduced to M. dubia, Cav. Cavanilles describes three species 

 of Melia, viz., M. azcdarach, azeJirachta, and dubia, and he gives figures 

 of tlie first two, but not of M. dubia. He describes flowers of the latter 

 as like those of M. Azadirachta in size, the staminal tube as 6-toothed 

 with a possibility of more teeth. (^^^ an pluribus ? "), and the stigma as 

 peltate. Now, as a matter of fact, the flowers of M. composita Willd. are 

 in size and other respects like those of M. Azidarach, and not like those of 

 M. Azadirachta. The mouth of the staminal tube is many- toothed, and 

 the stigma is ovoid, 5-toothed, and not peltate. Cavanilles' description 

 points to a plant belonging to some other genus than Melia, whatever 

 the " original specimen " named M. dubia in the Herbarium of the Uni- 

 versity of Rostock may be ; and it is on that specimen which the reduc- 

 tion of M. composita toM. dubia is based. (See Hiern in Hook. fil. Fl. Br, 

 Ind. I, 545.) No authentic specimen of M. superba is, so far as I know, 

 in existence (the specimens issued by Wallich, under this name, being 

 really M. robusta, Roxb.). In my opinion M. s^lperh a Roxh., (the Sunda 

 i.e., Malayan) species, cannot on account of its staminal tube (densely 

 villous internally and with numerous minute teeth at the mouth) be in- 



507 



