9 
There is often a curious unwillingness to admit that the genus Heritiera includes 
other than littoral species. As a matter of fact it is, so far as India is concerned, 
less of a littoral than an inland genus; only two of the five Indian species are 
littoral. 
The right to specific rank was vindicated for H. macrophylla Wall. by Kurz in 
Journ, As, Soc, Beng. xlii. pt. 2. 61 (1873) and more emphatically by the same author 
in Journ, Dot. xii, 66 (1874) and again in For. Flor. Brit, Burma i. 141 (1877); Kurz’s 
contention was practieally admitted in the Gardener's Chronicle (1886). i. 81 and since then 
has been thoroughly established by King, (Journ. As. Soc. Beng. lx. 2, 80) by 
Pierre (Flor. For. Coch.-Chin. t. 204) and by Hooker (Bot. Mag. t. 7192). This is 
a purely inland species. 
The right to specific rank for another Wallichian inland  Heritiera—H. acuminata 
Wall.—was equally vindicated by Kurz in Journ, Bot. xii. 65 (1874), This species, 
like £1, macrophylla, was nominally published in Voigt’s Hortus Suburbanus 
Caleuttensis (1815). Kurz, however, was not, in the absence of specimens, in a 
position to discover that H. Papilio Bedd. (Flor. Sylvat. t. 218), from Travancore and 
the Carnatic is the same tree as the earlier published Z. acuminata Wall, which 
was originally found by Wallich’s Collector DeSilva in Silhet and has since been 
collected in Cachar, {Bhuban range, 0, Mann! Naraindar Panji, М. G. Young! Jbiri 
Ghat, Prazer!) as well as in the lower Lushai Hills (Lengti, Prazer/). It 
is a large, often lofty tree, 5—6 feet in girth; the vernacular name in Cachar is 
** Akhar," 
The species now described and figured was in 1874 only represented by a 
manuscript drawing made under Wallich’s supervision and named by that botanist 
Н. dubia. This also Kurz recognised in 1874 as a valid species, even though no 
specimens were available. Some years later Gallatly, collecting in the Khasia hills, 
obtained flowering specimens of a Heritiera with leaves in shape like those of 
Н. acuminata but differing from those of that species in not being 3-nerved at the 
base. The leaves of Gallatly’s specimens differ from those of A. dubia as figured 
by Wallich in being narrower and acuminate, and the flowers too differ in having 
subacute, not obtuse, calyx-lobes. The staminal column is however exactly like that 
of H. dubia as figured by Wallich and the calyx-lobes are erect, not reflexed as in 
Н, acuminata. In the flowers examined by me the stamens are usually 7—8, very 
rarely 10, The species has, as Kurz has remarked, a considerable resemblance to I. 
littoralis and is obviously the most nearly related of all the inland, non-saline 
Heritieras to that species. | 
It may be well to note here that H. littoralis, which is the species usually met 
with on the Indian coasts, has never been found anywhere on the coasts of Bengal 
although it has been the object of very careful and prolonged search in order, if 
possible, to verify the statement to the contrary which is made by Masters in 
Flor. Brit. Ind. i. 363. Н. minor Roxb. (Balanopteris minor Gaertn.) named H. Fomes 
in the same work, is stated to occur inland. This is equally not the case—it does 
not extend beyond the mangrove swamps of the Sanlribuns, It is the 6 Sundri ” 
whieh gives its name to that characteristic portion of the Gangetic Delta, It appears 
to be equally common in the corresponling portion of the Irrawaddy Delta, but to 
occur nowhere else either in India cr Burma. 
Axn. Roy Bor. Garp. Carc, Vot. ІХ, 
