252 Dr. Francis Hamilton on the Hoitus Malabaricus, Part IF. 



irregularity in the corolla leads me to suspect that the Callicarpa lanata of 

 Dr. Roxburgh is in fact the C'ornuthi corymhosa {Enc. Meth. i. 54.), afterwards 

 called by M. Lamarck (///. Gen. No. 1500.) Callicarpa lanata; and that the 

 Callicarpa Tomex of M. Poiret, who never saw the plant, is exactly the same. 

 In this case M. Lamarck is probably right in quoting the Tomex of the Flora 

 Zeylanica with doubt ; and I suspect that the plant described by Linnsens in 

 the Mantissa, by \'ahl, by Gsertner, and by Roxburgh, is not the Ilia, or ori- 

 ginal Tomex. Until, however, the fruit of this or of the Tondi Teregam is 

 known, we had better adopt the original caution of Linnseus, "conjungere 

 genera non audeo." 



Ramena Pu, seu Pou Maram, p. 125. tab. 61. 

 I find no notice taken of this tree by any botanist, until Dr. Roxburgh 

 received from Malabar a tree, which he took to be the same, and called it 

 Steradia guttata (Hort. Beng. 50.). It seems to differ very little, if anything, 

 from the Clompanus minor of Rumphius {Herh. Amh. iii. 169. t. 107-), usually 

 quoted for the Stercidia Balanghas {Willd. Sp. PL ii. 872.), for which, as I 

 have said (Linn. Trans, xiii. 530.), the Cavalam of Rheede is usually quoted ; 

 but M. Poiret quotes both with doubt {Enc. M^th. vii. 429.). For this he 

 assigns no reason, nor has he seen the plant ; while Dr. Roxburgh considered 

 the Cavalam as his S. Balanghas (Hort. Beng. 50.). 



From the account given by the natives to Rheede concerning the fruit of the 

 Ramena Pu Maram (testantur tamen Malabarenses nonnunquam baccas ferre 

 banc arborem oblongo-rotundas, flavo-purpurascentes), we may perhaps be 

 induced to think that its fruit is small, and contains only a few seeds ; in 

 which case it is not likely to be the Clompanus minor, the fruit of which could 

 never have been mistaken for a berry : but the case may be different with that 

 of the Sterculia guttata ; for although I did not see the fruit, I consider it as 

 the " S. macrophylla capsulis dispermibus" (Enc. MM. viii. 432.). I however 

 have given specimens- to the library at the India House of both the S. Balan- 

 o-has and .S'. guttata of Dr. Roxburgh, with which the learned may satisfy 

 themselves concerning the proper synonyma. 



