239 
Neither King nor Miquel would appear to have seen Wallich’s 
S. spectabilis at Kew, Wallich’s No. 1277B, so named, resembles, 
and probably is, Amoora Rohituka, W. & A. It is not our plant. 
But there is another specimen of Wallich’s, viz., No. 1278, also 
from Goalpara, called Sphaerosacme Rohituka, which is certainly 
sected by me shows the teeth of the staminal tube rounded and 
only 8-9 half-exserted anthers, but King describes the teeth as 
acute (I think from the Andamans plant, which has acute teeth) 
and the anthers as 10, and some of my Duars specimens have 
shallow rounded teeth and 10 anthers. Miquel says ‘“‘ tubus 
urceolatus glaber dentibus 8 brevibus retusis; antherae 8 (an et 
Ps? ; 
King describes the panicles as bisexual, ‘‘ the female flowers 
mixed with the males and exactly like them, but with a pyramidal 
prominently 3-angled tawny pubescent 3-celled ovary crowned 
y a stigma as in the male.’’ In all the specimens seen by me the 
flowers are only apparently monoecious, and the female inflores- 
panicled, whereas a dissection of the panicled flower from another 
tree collected by Mr. Lace in the same locality (Lace 2501 marked 
Amoora Rohituka, Puri), has convinced me that, though the 
in the gardens at Calcutta and supposed to have been one of 
If Miquel’s description of A. spectabzlis and King’s description 
of A. Wallichii are compared with one another, and with the 
