382 



««« .««,«*«»«», — as a series of drawings of Chinese and Indian 

 plants. ^ The plate which forms t. 23 of Bohte's issue is t. 4 of 

 Cattley's edition ; it is one of the Indian drawings and represents 

 with fidelity B. frondosa while in young foliage. 



In 1826 Sprengel (Syst. Veg. vol. iii. p. 186) did not take up 

 B. parviflora or B. Braamiana ; he added, however, to Koenig's 

 genus another species, B. Loureirii, based on Genista scandens, 

 Lour. (Fl. Gochinch. vol. ii. p. 428) ; this plant, from internal 

 evidence, we know must belong to another genus. 



B. minor, Ham., which Bentham and Taubert have accepted as 

 a Butea, was obtained from Nepal by Buchanan (afterwards 

 Hamilton) in 1810. The species was not taken up in 1825 by 



^•S°J]S Pr ° dr ' FL Nep '^ ; lt was > however > issued by Wallich in 

 18o() (Cat. Lith. n. 5439 A) along with specimens of the same 



species (5439 B) collected by De Silva in the mountains of Silhet, 

 i.e., the Jamtea Hills. Griffith met with it again in the same 

 locality in 1837 as a gregarious shrub and sent a supply of seeds, 

 under the name B. suffruticosa, to Voigt at Serampore ; this 

 name was subsequently published in Griffith's works (Notul. 

 vol. iv. p. 443) in 1854. 



In 1842 Hasskarl (Flora, vol. xxv. 2, Beibl. p. 52) proposed a 

 genus Spatholobus for a Java plant, S. littoralis, with a pod like 



in 



Ned 



& 



(Nat 



an o^ r D ^ arly allied s P ecies - Bentham in 1854 (Miq. PI. Jungh, 

 p. ^S) reduced Drebbelia ferruginea, Zoll. & Mor., to Spatholobus 



Koxb., to Hasskarl s genus as£. Roxburghii— the term * parviflora,' 

 appropriate when used as Roxburgh used it, being meaningless 

 when the species has to be reduced to Spatholobus. 



In 18 15 Voigt (Hort. Suburb. Galcutt. p. 239) accepted B. parvi- 

 Jiora, Koxb., as a Butea. But on raising plants of B. minor from 

 the seeds given him by Griffith in 1837 Voigt decided that this 

 species is not -a Butea, and published it, with a generic diagnosis, 



f JT' "", u P n b .] l jTP rmis - A detailed description, subsequently 

 Sffi- 7 io*^ J om livin S specimens in Voigt's garden, was 

 jSf h m }\^S Gr W Notul. vol. iv. p. 441)! Owing to an 

 IZZt T* Meizotropin appears there as Megalotropis, and this 

 ^w S a f0 / m + 1S Cited in the Inde * Kewensis and 'used by 

 Thu X;?- a W6re a new generic name Proposed by Griffith, 

 hfm Jlf J?, k ? 6S 2?* re P resent Griffith's intention, since Griffith 

 ifcTnnltiS f ♦ w*5. e • 1 L ame t0 Yoi ^- U is not impossible, though 

 n^rt i ^• th f* GrifRth by a ^sus calami wrote Megalotropis 

 ZlT^L^- lZ f r ° piS i in a11 P r <*ability the altered orthography 

 ont r^ffi + K' m8tan .f ° f the editorial laxit y conspicuous tWgh- 

 • niiir^f L post ^ umoua Papers. We know, indeed, from a 

 tZ TfS^S^^S^y \^!^ specimen of 



the plant is a Butea. 



garden 



Ko^ ^blsefon' n ™ ?* to the statu8 and limits of Butea ' 

 VoM (based on W « I "*"?*" ^\ B ' *°ndo*a), of Meizotropis, 



referred), invites a 



