10 Dr. Hamilton on a Plant allied to the Genus Piper. 



of course we do not vet know what weight certain characters 

 should have, when we attempt to separate the species into na- 

 tural groups. 



The characters, therefore, by which different authors have 

 endeavoured to distinguish Piper from Peperomia, have been 

 not onlv different, but it remains still uncertain whether the 

 species that should be respectively arranged under these ge-, 

 nera, according to such characters, would form two groups 

 distinguished from each other by a remarkable difference in 

 general appearance. It is also uncertain whether or not all 

 the species of Piper can be reduced to the two genera, as dis- 

 tinguished by any characters yet proposed. For instance, 

 Hedwig, (Gen. Plant. 22.) endeavours to distinguish the Pi- 

 per, by its having no calyx, from the Peperomia, which has 

 a calyx, consisting of one peltate scale ; but the P. nigrum 

 or aromaticum, the P. betle, and the P. longum, the oldest 

 and best established species of Piper, have exactly this cha- 

 racter, by which Hedwig endeavours to distinguish Peperomia. 

 The generic character given by Kunth to the Peperomia, 

 (Spadix cylindricus floribus undique tectus. Flores henna- 

 phroditi, singulus squama suffultus. Stamina duo. Antherae 

 uniloculares. Stigma indivisum. Bacca monosperma,) is 

 very applicable to many species, and may distinguish them 

 from the old established kinds of Piper, which, with several 

 others that I have found in India, have a habit as well as a 

 character (Spadix cylindricus undique tectus squamis uniflo- 

 ris. Flores dioeci. Masc. filamenta duo vel plura antheris 

 bilocularibus. Fcem. germen unicum. Stigma sessile, pro- 

 funde divisum,) very different from the Peperomia rubella, 

 (Hooker Exotic. Flora, 58,) which nearly resembles a species 

 from Nepal, which I gave to Sir E. J. Smith. But the Pe- 

 peromia incana, (Hooker, 66,) and Peperomia maculosa, 

 (Hooker, 92,) with the same character, have little or no re- 

 semblance either to the two species first mentioned, to the old 

 established species of Piper with dioecious flowers, or even to 

 each other. Until, therefore, the species of Piper have been 

 more fully described, the subdivisions that have been made 

 can only be considered as provisional, and merely as such I 

 propose what follows. 



On the hills near Goyalpara I found a shrub, which Lin- 

 nasus would probably have called a Piper, but which differs a 



