101 



tea odorata. This plant has been named Sijnaptea grandiflora by Kurz, 

 (Jonrn. A.S., Beng., 1870, 2, 65), and Anisoptera odorata Kurz, (For. Flor. 

 Burm. I, 112), while Dyer has identified it with Hopea grandiflora, Wall, 

 Cat. 958, and reduced it to Vatica grandiflora (F.B.I., i., 301). 



The characters of the genus Sijnnptea, as given by its author, are 

 practically those of Vatica, Linnaeus (Mantissa II., p. 152-3, No. 

 1311), except that, whereas in the Linntean description nothing is 

 said about the fruit or its relation to the calyx, Griffith distinctly 

 exj)laius that he has given the name S'jnaptea because the ovary is 

 adnate to the calyx. He does not say to what extent adnate, but, 

 in fruiting specimens of his Synnptea odorata, the adhesion extends to 

 the lower part only. In the " Mantissa " of Linnaeus, only one species 

 of Vatica is described, I'iz., V. ckmensis ; and of the specimen thus 

 named in the Linnaean Herbarium, Sir J. Gr. Smith publishes a figure 

 (Smith Tc, ined., t. 36.). This figure however does not show clearly 

 whether the base of the ovary is, or is not, adherent to the calyx, 

 and the fruit is not figured at all. A reference to Linnaeus' specir 

 men ought to settle what V. chinensis really is ; but unfortunately 

 it has not settled it. I have not myself examined the actual Lin- 

 nsean specimen ; but the opinions of botanists who have examined 

 it vary as to its identity. The plant is generally admitted not to 

 be of Chinese origin, for no Dipterocarp is known to inhabit 

 China. Wight and Arnot are of opinion (Prod. 84) that Vatica 

 chinensis is the same as Vatica laccifera, W. A. (Shorea Talura, 

 'Roxh.~-flde Dyer). Alph. De Candolle (Prod. XVI., 2, p. 619) keeps up 

 the species V. chinensis, while Dyer (Fl. Br. Ind., I, 302) i-educes it to 

 Vatica Boxhurghiann, Blume (Mus. Bot. Lagd. Bat. II, 31. t. 7.), 

 Blume's Vatica Roxhurghiana, being, as the citations and figure given 

 by that author show, the Vateria Boxbnrghiana of Wight's Illustrations, 

 p. 87, and Icones t. 26. It cannot be demonstrated, therefore, either from 

 Linnaeus' description or specimen, or from Smith's figui'e of the latter, 

 whether Linnaaus intended his genus Vatica to include only plants with 

 the ovary and frnit free from the calyx, or whether plants in which 

 there is such partial adhesion might not also be admitted. If the 

 latter were the case there would be no occasion to keep up the genus 

 Synnptea. This is the view adopted by Messrs. Hooker and Benthara, 

 who remark of Syiaptea, " ex descriptione auctoris verisimiliter ad 

 VaUcam referenda est.'" This view is also adopted by Dyer, in " Hooker's 

 Flora of British India," whce he reduces Synnptea odorata, Griff., to the 

 genus Vatica, Section Eu-Valica. This view is also to a certain extent 

 adopted by Burck who (Ann. Jard. Bot. Buitenzoi-g) makes Synaptea 

 a section of Vatica, characterised by having the lobes of the fruiting 



393 



