40 



1. Cananga syheslris prima sivn trifoHata (Malaice Oetan). 



2. Canaiuja sglvestris secunda sive angustifolia. 



3. Cananga sylvestris tertia sive latifolia. 



Of the first two Riimphins gives figures on t. 66 of the same volume ; 

 and judging from these figures, the pLants fall into the modern genus 

 Polyallhia. 



Linna}us' Species Plantarum was published in 1753, therefore 

 Riimphius' names are in point of time, as they are in point of form, pre- 

 Linnaean. Linna?us does not accepi Cananga afi a genus and he refers 

 to the Cananga of Rumphius only in a note under Uvaria Zeijlanica. 

 And the first botanists to adopt the Ganangn of Rumphius as a genus 

 are Hook fil. and Thomson (in Fl. Ind. 130). But in 1775 Aublet (in 

 his Histoire des Phiufes de la Giiiane Francnise,) published, in regular 

 Linntean fashion, the genus Cananga for the reception of a single species 

 named C. ouregow of which he gave a figure (t. 244). Nineteen years 

 later (1794) Ruiz and Pavon, (in their Prodromus Florre Peruviance 

 et Chilensis,') published under the name of Guatteria a genus with 

 exactly the same characters as Aublet's Cananga. Unless therefore 

 Hook f. and Thomson are right in making a special case in estabh'shinir, 

 as a genus in the Liiinnenn sense, the Cananga of Rumphius, Aublet's 

 genus Cananga must stand, and to it must be relegated all the American 

 species referred to Ruiz and Pavon's genus GuaUeria. Authorities vary 

 in their treatment of the Giinamja of ilumphins. Dunal (in his Monn- 

 grapJiie de la fainille des Anonacees) pronounces for the suppression of 

 Aublet's Cananga in favour of that of Rumphius who, he incorrectly 

 says, assigned tivo species to it ; the fact being as already shown, that 

 Rumphius divided Cananga into (a) cultivated (with one sort) and 

 (6) wild (sylvestres) with tln*ec sorts. Dunal (and I think wrongly) 

 refers all the Cananga of Rumphius to Unona. In their Genera Planta- 

 rum, Mr. Bentham and Sir J. D. Hooker retain the Cananga of Rum- 

 phius and I'educe Cananga of Aublet to Guatteria. Baillon, on the other 

 hand, retains the Cananga of Aublet as a genus, and to it refers all the 

 S. American species of Guatteria. He reduces Cananga odorata H. f. 

 and Th. to Unona and, altering the termination of its generic name, he 

 makes it a section of Unona under the sectional title of Cananginm. 

 The grounds for separating Cananga from Unona a.s a genus ai'e thus 

 stated by the authors of the Flora Tndica. " In habit and general appear- 

 ance this genus closely resembles Unona ; but the indefinite ovules pre- 

 vent its being referred to that genus. The peculiar stamen (with a 

 long conical apical point) and the seeds are themselves, we think, suffi- 

 cient to justify us in distinguishing it as a genus." The simplest 

 solution of the synonymic knot, and one for which there is some justi- 



289 



