272 ANNALS OF THE ROYAL BOTANIC GARDEN, CALCUTTA. [C. Rotang.. 
also in the southern part-of the Indian peninsula, the type-specimens must be con- 
sidered as those coming from Ceylon. In these I have always found the leaflets with 
the mid-costa without bristles in their upper surface and usually also devoid of the 
spinule which is always present in the continental specimens. Perhaps also in these 
last the male flowers are slightly longer, but otherwise Í have been unable to find 
any differences between the Ceylon and. the Indían specimens. Roxburgh has 
described C. Rotang on specimens coming from the Coromandel coast, and on these 
Griffith had- established his C. Rozburghii, a name which in any case ought to be 
assigned to the continental form of C. Rotang, if it were possible to discover specific 
differences between that and the Ceylon plants. 
Following Blume I am of opinion that C. monoicus is exactly the same thing as 
C, Rotang (C. Roxburghti Griff), since evidently Plate cx (cxcu’ which is taken 
from a drawing of Roxburgh (see Griffith, l. c. p. ix), reproduces the C. monoicus of 
this author and is a rather good representation of the ? plant of C. Rofang. I con- 
sider also as belonging to C. Rotang the other plate of Griffith’s work No. cxcv A, 
published with the name of C. fasciculatus which is also reproduced from a drawing of 
Roxburgh. The likeness of the two plates is evident; only this last apparently 
represents a dicecious plant, as there has been added a female partial inflorescence 
where the companion flower at each spathel, usually sterile in the other species of 
Calamus, is here apparently fully developed and expanded, while in the other 
inflorescences the companion flower had fallen and only the female flowers and ovaries. 
in course of developement are to be seen on it. As that plate in the work of 
Griffith was meant to represent C. fascicuiatus, the clustered arrangement of the leaflets 
has probably been exaggerated in the reproduction; doubtless also the deep indentations 
on the margins of the leaflets, a peculiarity not observed in any of the species of 
Calamus known to me, are fanciful. I have not seen living plants of C. Rotang, and 
in the specimens of these species at my disposal I have not observed female partial 
inflorescences where the companion flower of the female flower’ was expanded as. 
would appear to be the case with C. Rotang, judging from the plats quoted above. 
In all the species of Caiamus seen by me the companion flower, though sometimes. 
fairly developed, remains closed, but I do not see any impossibility that in 
C. Hoíang, and perhaps in some other species, that flower may be so well formed 
as to expand its corolla. 
Most certainly C. monoicus is nothing more than the male plant of C, Rotang at 
the moment when the female and the companion flower (male or neuter?) are on 
the spadix. 
I may mention that I never have had occasion to observe an absolutely monccious. 
species of Calamus, or one which never produces exclusively male spadices. I have, 
, however, observed in C. luridus and perhaps in some other species that the female 
inflorescences sometimes produce at their extremities a few spikelets with male flowers. 
only. 
C. Rotang greatly resembles C. fenuis, from which, however, it is very clearly 
distinct, by its leaves almost without petiole and with unicostate leaflets; the fruit 
