﻿117 



Specierum," which for Garcinia occupies 28 pages. This "con- 

 spectus" contains in fact the diagnoses of Alph. DCs meaning. 

 The Conspectus Specierum is not of much use, however, for rapidly 

 guiding the way to a species, as the bifurcatory characters given are 

 largely anatomical, — to get to the group which contains our unknown 

 species we require (often) to know the form of the stomata, the 

 number of layers of cells in the mesophyl or the intimate structure 

 of the epidermis. 



Next come the species. The name of the species is followed by 

 a (not complete) synonymy (for the diagnosis we must refer back to 

 the Conspectus). After the synonymy come geography (very shortly 

 done) ; then the description, frequently nearly a page, in Latin; the 

 first part of this gives a description of the vegetative parts ; the 

 second, often ten or twelve lines, gives the anatomic description of 

 the leaf ; the third describes the inflorescence, flowers and fruit. 

 The account of the species is concluded by " remarks," in French, 

 frequently lengthy, sometimes rather watery. 



I have tried to test the form (first) of this work, and as my 

 knowledge of the American species is exceedingly small, I com- 

 menced at the third tribe " Garcinieae," p. 251. The first genus 

 is "xxi. Garcinia,'" which stands thus without the name of its 

 author, or any reference whatever; it should mean " Garcinia 

 Vesque," but on turning back to p. 27 and comparing the standard 

 form adopted by "Vesque, it seems that the whole synonymy of the 

 genus Garcinia (180 species) has somehow slipped out. It is true 

 that an incomplete set of references is given, p. 254, for the sub- 

 genus Xanthochymm, but none is given for the other subgenera 

 (pp. 258, 259, &c). It is still more unfortunate that, though 

 Vesque depends mainly on Pierre's excellent monograph and plates 

 of the difficult genus Garcinia (indeed, it is a chief merit of Vesque's 

 work that he has followed Pierre so closely), there is no citation or 

 acknowledgment of Pierre's Garcinia under the genus Garcinia 

 (nor indeed under the order Guttiferaa, nor indeed under the sub- 

 order Garcinieae). The slip of all the heading of the genus Garcinia 

 and of all acknowledgment of Pierre is, however, clearly only a 

 slip, — though an awkward one. 



I then proceeded to look up the first few species of Garcinia. 

 The first species stands thus : — 



"1. G. spicata Hook. f. ; Pierre Fl. Forest; 



" Vesque Epharm. ii. t. 89, 90." 



This is a citation at once condensed and incomplete. The 

 name " spicata Hook, f." is not a MS. one; it should stand " Hook, 

 f. in Journ. Linn. Soc. v. 14 [1875], p. 486." The reference 

 to Pierre should be to " Pierre, Forest Fl. Cochinch. pars 5. Enum. 

 Garc. p. iv." The other references (in the short synonymy of G. 

 spicata) are not complete ; the reference to Planchon and Triana is 

 to luc. cit. 304 " ; the synonomy "Stalagmites ovalifolius Don." is 

 adduced ; it should be " G. Don Gen. Syst. v. 1, p. 621." 



Proceeding to the second sp. of Garcinia, the citation stands : — 

 "2. G. lucida Vesque. — C. sp. Oliv. Fl. Trop. Africa; Pierre; 

 Fl. forest, Cochinchin." 



