159 
Linnaeus founded his species S. colubrina on Rheede’s picture 
in the Hortus Malabaric cus, vol. vii. p. 9. t. 5, and there is no 
correspondin ecimen in the Linnean Herbarium. The 
Wallichian specimen 1589 herb. Wight is, however, without 
doubt the same thing as the plant figured by Rheede. The 
first confusion was introduced by Willdenow, who adds gine 
ences to Burm. Fi. Ind. in which Hort. Malab. viii. p. 47, 
24, is cited (this is the type of Strychnos Rheedii, C. B. Cla 4 
and also to Rumph. Amb. ii. p. 121, which is the Timor plant 
(S. ligustrina, Bl.). At - end, however, he adds that S. colu- 
brina is a native of India 
Roxburgh augments the Be ei by quoting from Willdenow 
not only the wrong figure in Rheede, but also by giving a ame 
tion of his conception of Linnaeus’ S. colubrina, and inc luding 
Smith’s plant from Silhet asa specimen. This particular speci- 
men is S. azillaris, Colebr., and belongs to a different section 
of the genus. De Candolle only continued the confusion as did 
also Bentham, who added to it by aa Ne S. bicirrhosa, Lesch. 
as a i ae gel of S. colubrina. To C. Clarke in the Flor. 
Brit. Ind. p- 87, is due ihe credit oe establishing clearly 
what Tinnaens intended as his S. colubrina, but unfortunately 
in his synonymy he included S. bicirrhosa, Lesch., dling 
Bentham, ae ae established a variety zeylanica from eylon. 
This latter proves to be quite a distict species, and is described 
herein under the name S. trichocalyx, A. W. Hill (see p. ie 
belonging to the Penicillatae section of the genus. It is th 
plant which Bentham places under S. minor, Bl. as var. ee i 
and unfortunately suggests ag it may be the plant figured by 
Rheede in Hort. Malab. vu. t. 
. Dalzellii, C. B. 
statement that the ovary in that species is glabrous, whereas 
Thwaites states that it is villous (Enum. p. 425), which is con- 
y our own observation. 
With regard to S. Beddomei, Clarke, no essential differences 
have been found to separate it from S. colubrina, Linn. and it 
has therefore been reduced. Clarke compares it to S. laurina 
from pone and on Wallich’s sheet 4455 (Koenig) the two 
Spectes are xed, SS. laurina,; however, differs in the leaves 
* ale in hiciee yee anthers, and a much larger panicle of 
ow 
In ‘the Hortus Malabaricus Rheede’s picture of the small fruit 
shows three seeds in section, and in his description he says 
mina minime.’? S. colubrina is one of the four plants 
referred to by Rheede under the name ‘ Caniram’ and is one of 
© known as ‘ Valli-Caniram’ (see Rheede las i. p. 67). 
29. §. lenticellata, 4. W. Hill; species ex affinitate S. colu- 
brinae, Linn., et S. micranthae, Thw., sed ramis lenticellis con- 
