496 Materials for a Flora of the Malayan Peninsula. 



large, fleshy, corrugated, ovary none. Female floweks in racemes shorter 

 than the panicles of the males and stouter. Flowers "15 in. in diara., 

 ,on stout pubei'ulous pedicels. Calyx tliick, cupular, puberulous, with 

 4 broad triangular segments. Petals 4, broadly triangulai", puberulous, 

 larger than the calyx-segments. Stamens 8, shorter than the petals, 

 the anthers imperfect. The disc a deep fleshy cup with crenate edges. 

 Ovary broadly ovoid, rusty-tomentose, crowned by the large discoid glab- 

 rous ob.scurely-lobed reflexed stigma. Drupe ovoid-rotund, compressed, 

 minutely tomeutose, fleshy, '6 in. in diam. Eugler in DO. Mon. Piian. 

 IV, 820. Buchanania auriculata, Blurae in Mns. Bot. Lugd. Bat. I, 

 185. Semecarpus ? grandifolia, Wall. Cat., No. 985 (excluding the speci- 

 mens mentioned in the Appendix to the Cat.). 



Penang : Wallich, No. 985. Malacca : Maingay, No. 484/4. Singa- 

 pore ; Kurz, Anderson, No. 69; Ridley, Nos. 444, 1880 and 4775 E. ; 

 Hullett, No. 223. Penang : Curtis, No. 1037. 



This is distinguished from the next species by its smaller leaves 

 and panicles and much larger fruit. It is the plant from Pendng, 

 issued by Wallich as No. 985 of his Catalogue, which he doubtfully 

 referred to the genus Semecarpus., as S. .'' grandifuUa. Along with this 

 however Wallich issued, as noted in the Appendix to his lithographed 

 Catalogue, (p. 286) under the same number, but not ( as is usual with 

 Wallich's plants in similar cases) distinguished by any letters, the 

 much larger (although in other respects similar) leaves of another 

 species. The specifio name grandifolia is not applicable to the present 

 plant which is the true Buchanania aurictdata of Blume (not however 

 of Miquel), although it is applicable to the supplementai-y sheets of 

 985, one of which, as issued by Wallich is 30 inches in length. I have 

 followed Sir Joseph Hooker and Dr. Engler in retaining Blume's specific 

 name aurictdata for the present plant. But, for the supplementary 

 sheets, I do not propose to retain Wallich's name of grandifolia (his 

 name having really been given to two things), but I propose for them the 

 .name Campnosperma Wallichii. In this I do not follow the distipguished 

 Botanists just mentioned, for they call them G. Grifiihii, Marchand. 

 But Marchand's name, in my opinion, ought to be given to the plant on 

 which he founded that species, Vvhioh (as he mentions in his Monograph) 

 was Griffith's No. 1109. And this I do in .spite of the fact that Griffith's 

 No 1109 is exactly what Blume named Buchanania macrophylla. Thei'e 

 is no doubt that, had Marchand known of Blume's name, he ought to have 

 called his plant Campnosperma macrophylla. But as he did not, and as 

 he was the first to put the plant into the genus Campnosperma, his 

 name C Griffithii must I think remain; and another name must bo 

 found for what Sir Joseph Hooker and Dr. Engler name G. Griffithii ; 



782 



