50 ANNALS OF THE ROYAL BOTANIC GARDEN, CALCUTTA. 
Malays on account of the fragrance of its flowers. These wild Cunangas Rumphius calls 
Cunange sylvestres, and of them he distinguishes three sorts :— 
1. Cananga sylvestris prima sive trifoliata (Malaice Oetan). 
2. Cananga sylvestris secunda sive angustifolia. 
3. Cananga sylvestris tertia sive latifolia. 
Of the first two Rumphius gives figures on t. 66 of the same volume; and, judging 
from these figures, the plants would fall into the modern genus Polyalthia, 
Linneeus’ Species Plantarum was published in 1753; therefore Rumphius’ names are 
in point of time, as they are in point of form, pre-Linnean. Linneus does not 
accept Cananga as a genus, and he refers to the Cananga of Rumphius only in a note 
under Uvaria Zeylanica. And the first botanists to adopt the Cananga of Rumphius as a 
genus are Hook. fil. & Thomson (in Fl. Ind. 130). But im 1775 Aublet (in his 
Histoire des Plantes de la Guiane Francaise) published, in regular Linnean fashion, the 
genus Cananga for the reception of a single species named C. oureyow, of which he 
gave a figure (t. 244). Nineteen years later (1794) Ruiz and Pavon (in their Prodromus 
Flore Peruviane et Chilensis) published, under the name of (Gwatteria, a genus with exactly 
the same characters as Aublet’s Canunga. Unless, therefore, Hook. f. & Thomson are 
right in making a special case in establishing, as a genus in the Linnean sense, the 
Cunanga of Rumphius, Aublet’s genus Cananga must stand, and to it must be relegated 
all the American species referred to Ruiz and Pavon’s genus Guatteria. Authorities vary 
in their treatment of the Cananga of Rumphius. Dunal (in his Monographie de la famille 
des Anonacees) pronounces for the suppression of Aublet’s Cunanga in favour of that of 
Rumphius, who, he incorrectly says, assigned two species to it; the fact being, as already 
shown, that Rumphius divided Cananga into (a) cultivated (with one sort) and (4) wild 
(sylvestres) with three sorts. Dunal (and-I think wrongly) refers all the Canangas of 
Rumphius, to Unona. In their Genera Plantarum, My. Bentham and Sir J. D. Hooker 
retain the Cananga of Rumphius and reduce Cananga of Aublet to Guatteria. Baillon, on 
the other hand, retains the Cananga of Aublet as a genus, and to it refers all the South 
American species of Guatteria. He reduces Cananga odorata, H. f. & Th., to Unona, and, 
altering the termination of its generic name, he makes it a secticn of Unona “under the 
sectional title of Canangium. 7 | 
The grounds for separating Cananga from Unona as a genus are thus stated by the 
authors of the Flora Indica: “In habit and general appearance this genus closely 
resembles Unona ; but the indefinite ovules prevent its being referred to. that. genus. The 
peculiar stamen (with a long conical apical point) and the seeds are themselves, we think, 
- Sufficient to justify us in distinguishing it as a genus.” The simplest solution of the 
synonymic knot, and one for which there is some justification on the ground of structure, 
appears to lie in the acceptance of Baillon’s suggested name and in giving up that 
of the authors of the Flora Indica. — 
The synonymy of Guatteria is further complicated by the fact that a large number 
of ApeOes with valvate estivation were referred to it by Wallich and others. These, 
however, yee separated by Hook fil. & Thomson, by whom the genus Polyalthia was 
pee se reception, Sir Joseph Hooker refers to Cananga, not only the species 
. odorata, | ub. another named @, virgata. The latter plant appears to me, in the light 
of full material recently received, to be a typical Cyathocalyz, and to that genus lg 
