124 ANNALS OF THE ROYAL BOTANIC GARDEN, CALCUTTA [C. erectus. 
Oxservations.—The characteristics assigned by Roxburgh to his C. erectus are not 
many, but they are sufficient for a sure identification. I have based my description 
of this species mainly on the specimens collected by Mr. C. B. Clarke and by Mr. G. 
Mann in the Khasia Hills. 
Kurz (Journ. As. Soc. l. c.) refers C. longisetus Griff. to C. erectus, from which, 
however, it is perfectly distinct (see observations under (C. /ongisetus) The same 
author refers also OC, macrocarpus Griff. to C. erectus, and in this he is certainly 
correct. Griffith had based the description of C. macrocarpus on a fruiting specimen 
gathered by Major Jenkins near Koreahparah, one of the Duars of Bhutan. The 
figure of C. macrocarpus in Griffith’s large work (fig. I, [plate 186 A) evidently 
represents the summit of a spadix clawed in the attenuated portions of its main 
axis, but this may be also very frequently observed in the most typical specimens 
of C. erectus. The very peculiar lacerate marcescent spathes of C. erectus are fairly 
represented in Griffith’s quoted figure of C. macrocarpus. The fruits of this species 
in fig. I of the said plate are 4 cm. in length by 25-27 mm. in diam. and look 
as if they were perfectly ripe. In this stage the fruits of many species of Calamus 
increase considerably in volume by the pressure of the fleshy and watery tissues 
of the interior which stretch the scaly coating. Some of the fruits of C. erectus in 
the specimens gathered by Hooker f. & Thomson at Seetakoond are hardly smaller than 
those of C. macrocarpus as figured by Griffith, while they exactly agree in size and 
shape with those of C. macrocarpus as figured by Martius (l. c.) The fig. II of 
plate 186 A of Griffith’s work represents another fruit of C. macrocarpus which in 
no way differs from those of the most typical specimens of @. erectus. From all 
these considerations I cannot consider C. macrocarpus even as a variety of C. erectus. 
Griffith founded his C. collinus on a fruiting spadix of C. erectus and some 
portions of a leat of a Zalaeca, very probably of Z. secunda, as I have been able 
to ascertain from QGriffth's authentic specimen in the Herbarium at Kew, where the 
portion of leaf preserved seems to be the very one represented in plate 186 of 
Griffith’s work. Griffith had acknowledged the affinities between C, collinus and C, 
schizospathus {and hence with C. erectus), and to this he alludes when at the foot of 
the description of C. collinus he says: ‘‘ This species appears to be closely allied to 
the succeeding,” that is to say, to C. schizospathus, not to C. maerocarpus, as the 
latter has been added by the publisher of Griffith’s posthumous work, the name 
‘macrocarpus’ not being mentioned in the original paper on Palms published in the 
Caleutta Journal; moreover, Griffith not having seen the leaves of his C. macrocorptis 
could not have added to the description of this species *' the terminal part of the 
leaf of which (viz. C. schizcspathus) differs however from this species (viz, C, 
collinus), etc." The fruit of the authentic specimen of C. collinus is of the same 
shape as tbat of the true C. erecíus, but a little smaller, being 3 cm. by 18 mm. 
The seed of this fruit is not quite ripe and is only a little smaller than, but is 
otherwise perfectly like that of C. erectus. The spadix looks more compact and 
shorter than is usual in the specimens of ©. erectus I have examined, and is not 
aculeate on its axial portions and the partial inflorescences are formed by single 
spikelets ; but probably what was considered by Griffith to be 'an entire spadix 
is only a branch or partial inflorescence; besides, the spadix in the figure of Q. 
