241 
Distribution :—Throughout the plains and low hills of north- 
east India from the Sikkim Terai to Assam and Burmah; moun- 
tain valleys of Orissa, Mayurbhanj and Singbhum, extending to 
Ganjam in Madras; Andamans, King (but possibly different). 
Note = Dr. O. Starr. 
King says (Mat. i. 57): “* The a Siig above Pie is that 
of Wallich’s own specimen (in flower) taken from a tree grown in 
the Bot. Gard. Calcutta, which had Keitubtly been beoaghé from 
Goalpara in Assam,’’ and he quotes, among the sy nonyms, 
** Sphaerosacme spectabilis, Wall. MSS. in Herb. Cale.” It is 
clear then, that King drew up his description (apart from the 
fruits) from an unnumbered specimen of Wallich’s in the Cal- 
cutta Herbarium. That is no doubt the sheet which you say you 
recollect having seen at Calcutta. From his description it is 
evident that this specimen is a companion to the sheet marked 
1278. 1. H.B.C.’’ in Wallich’s own herbarium, except that the 
latter also holds an inflorescence of Amoora cucullata. Now this 
sheet is without a ticket, and has merely the distribution number 
and H.B.C written in pencil i in the left-hand bottom corner. On 
the other hand there is a label pinned on to a sheet written up in 
pencil (lett- -hand pees corner) “1277 H.B.C.”’ This label, in 
Wallich’s writing, run Mae eo (Aglaia?) spectabilis 
Wall.—H.B.C., Octob., ” 1924 E Goalpara introd* ab amiciss® 
Hamiltonio, M. it ae and across it, ‘If Roxburgh’s Andersonia 
was tenable this would be a spec. thereof.” To which is added in 
the centre of the label, in pencil, “‘1277.’’ The plant on this 
sheet is Amoora Rohituka, a plant represented by several sheets in 
Wallich’s herbarium under the name, ‘‘ Sphaerosacme poly- 
stachya, Wall., in Herb. 1823.’ 
It is, therefore, not to be assumed that the label beginning, 
‘ Sphaerosacme (4g laia?) spectabilis,”” was intended for the 
plant with which it is at present associated in the Wallichian 
harhatried: It was very probably ee to it by accident, and 
received the number 1277 originally given to Sphaerosacme poly- 
stachya after it had become attached. But if it was not intended 
for Sphaerosacme polystachya, we can hardly escape the con- 
clusion that it is the missing label of 1278 1. ‘Tt was written in 
1824, 4 or 5 years before the distribution numbers and the pre 
But if we transfer the label to shoot 
to this sheet by mistake, and was originally co ect a 
oe holding the “‘ ’ Sphaerosacme spectabilis is? label. i phis 
B 
