071 the Hortiis Malabaricus, Part III. 9I 



which he was followed by Burman {Fl. Ind. 51.), who added to 

 the synonyma the Bancalus of Rumphius {Herb. Amb. iii. 84. 

 tab. 55.). Now in this plate there are two figures ; of which the 

 first represents (setting aside the errors in the direction to the 

 plate) the Bancalus mas et parvifoUa, which may perhaps be con- 

 sidered as the same with the Katou Tsjaka, although this is by 

 no means clear. Without any attention to the fact of two plants 

 being figured in tab. 55 by Rumphius, and laying aside his 

 usual accuracy, M. Lamarck quotes the Bancalus {tab. 55.) for 

 his Cephalanthus chinensis {Enc. Meth. i. 678.), leaving it doubt- 

 ful whether or not the Nauclea orientalis is dift'erent ; but he 

 does not quote the Katou Tsjaka. Afterwards M. Poiret does 

 not diminish the confusion by giving us a Nauclea orientalis, for 

 which he quotes the Cephalanthus chinensis, the Cephalanthus of 

 Linnaeus, and Bancalus of Rumphius with doubt, while he refers 

 the Katou Tsjaka to his Nauclea citrifolia {Enc. Meth. iv. 435.), 

 distinguishing this from his N. orientalis by its having the pe- 

 dunculus shorter than the flower ; while in his N. orientalis this 

 member is much longer, as represented by M. Lamarck (///. 

 Gen. 1. 153. /. 1.). Still later, M. Poiret endeavours (E«c. Meth. 

 Sup. iv. 63.) to point out differences between his iSaiiclea orien- 

 talis and Cephalanthus chinensis, which is the Nauclea purpurea 

 of Roxburgh and Willdenow {Sp. PI. i. 928.). Now all this 

 seems wrong : for the Katou Tsjaka is the Nauclea orientalis or 

 Cephalanthus foliis oppositis of Linnaeus ; and the Nauclea citri- 

 folia, like this having a short pedunculus, is the real Nauclea 

 orientalis; while the A^. orientalis figured by M. Lamarck must 

 be considered as a new species, and from the size and shape of 

 its leaf might be called A . citrifolia, were it not for leading into 

 error. Besides, before we can safely refer the A^. purpurea or 

 Cephalanthus chinensis to the Bancalus {tab. 55.), we must know 

 whether the first or second figure of Rumphius is meant. Neither 



N 2 can 



