70 



XI.~SARCANTHUS OXYPHYLLUS. 



R. A.. ROLFE, 



The identity of Sarcanthu,^ oxyphyllus, Wall., has never been 

 satisfactorily established, though the late Sir J* D.Hooker referred 

 to it a specimen collected at Moulmein by Parish. He, how- 

 ever, mentioned a so-named drawing at Calcutta, which to him 

 suggested some misapplication of the name byLindleyor Wallich. 

 Owing to the necessity of identifying the plant, the matter was 

 referred to Major A. T. Gage, I. M.S., Superintendent of the 

 Hoyal Botanic Garden, Calcutta, who informs us that there is no 

 original "Wallichian drawing at Calcutta, but there is a record in 

 a catalogue of the Calcutta Botanic Garden which enables the 

 plant to be identified. 



Lindley, in 1840 (Bot. Reg. xxvi. Misc. p. 58), mentions /Sar- 



canthus oxyphyllus, Wallich MSS., as follows: "'This plant, 

 which has been lately received from Calcutta by several persons, 

 has flowered in the garden of the Horticultural Society, and proves 

 to be nothing more than a narrow-leaved variety of Sarcanihus 

 rostratus, Si species of no beauty, long since introduced by the 

 Horticultural Society from China.'' The habitat of the plant is 

 not stated, and, unfortunately, the specimen alluded to is not pre- 

 served in Lindley' s Herbarium. Reichenbach, however, who in 

 1855 obtained a specimen from Consul Schiller, which the latter 

 had received direct from Calcutta (Otto and Dietr. Allg. Gartenz. 

 xxiii. p. 331), indicated tbe plant as distinct from S. rostraUiSy 

 LindL, and it is now evident that this view is correct. 



The only specimen of 5. oxyphyllus cited by Sir J. D. Hooker 

 (Fl. Brit. Ind. vi. p. 70) is Moulmein, Parish, a plant collected 

 long after Wallich's time, to which alone his remark applies that 

 the species is very nearly allied to S. pugioniformis, Eeichb. f. He 

 also cites, somewhat doubtfully, as synonjonoug^ Cleisostoma 

 suhulatuniy Blume, and AiigraecuTn pugioniformey Klotzsch, the 

 former a Javan plant, afterwards called Sarcanthus suhulaUis, 

 Reichb. f., the latter from Venezuela, now known as C am^pylo c en- 

 truTTi pugioniforme, Rolfe. 



The Calcutta drawing above-mentioned is reproduced by Sir 

 J". D. Hooker under the name of Sarcanthus secundusy Griff., in 

 Ann. R. Bot. Gard. Calc. v. p. 51, t. 77, and on p. 52 the note 

 occurs : " The drawing here reproduced is inscribed ' Sarcanthus 

 oxyphyUus, Wall. ' in "Wallich's handwriting; to which is added 



' Duphla Hills, Mr. Lister, Md., June, 1875 ' (it is 1878 on the 

 Kew copy)." The phrase **in "Wallich's handwriting" is 

 obviously incorrect, and is probably that of Dr. King, 



Wallich' s Herbarium, now at Kew, throws no light on the 

 matter, though his number 7321 includes specimens of Sarcan- 

 thus secunduSf Griff. This number comprises three species, of as 

 many different genera : (1) the type of Micropera pafUda, Lindl. 

 ^Gen. & Sp- Orch. p. 219), collected in E. Sylhet by F. de Silva; 

 2) Sarcanthus secundus, Griff., collected in Sylhet in August, 

 1831, by W. Gomez (the other name cited by Wallich); and (3) 

 Saccolabium ramosvm, Lindl., collected in the Loam Mountains 

 in May, 1830 (collector not stated). The latter is not" cited by 



