f 



398 G. King — Materials for a Flora of the Malayan Peninsula. [No. 1, 



in. wide, 2 in. thick. Lamk. Encyc. Metli. II, 240 ; DC. Prodr. II, 

 500 ; Bak. in Flor. Brit. Ind. II, 267. 



Subsp. genuina ; leaves 1-jugate, leaflets subfalcate-oblong, shortly 

 bluntly acuminate. G. ramiflora Miq. Flor. Ind. Bat. I,'78. G. ramiflora 

 var. a W. & A. Prodr. 293.— Rumph. Herb. Amboin. I, t. 63; Lamk. 

 111. t. 331 f. 2. 



Not reported from our area. Distrib. Java, Horsfield 146 (erro- 

 neously distributed as G. bijuga) ! Ceram, Teysmann 1961 (erroneously 

 distributed as G. cauliflora) ! Amboina, Rumphius (icon.) ! Teysmann 

 5528 ! 



Subsp. bijuga ; leaves 2- jugate. G. bijuga Spanoghe, Linnaea XV, 

 201 (1841), name only. 



a. Var. heterophylla Thw. Enum. PI. Zeyl. 97; terminal pair of 

 leaflets acute or shortly acuminate, larger than the basal pair. C. bijuga 

 Miq. Flor. Ind. Bat. I, 78. 0. ramiflora Bedd. Fl. Sylvat. t. 315, not of 

 Linn. C. polyandra Miq. Anal. Bot. Ind. I, 11, not of Roxb. 



Andamans ; Coco Group, rare, Train! S. Andaman coast, very rare, 

 King ! King's Collector ! Perak ; Matong, on the coast, Wray 2503 ! 

 Johore ; Skudai River, Hullett and King ! Singapore ; Sungei Jurong, 

 Ridley 5891! Distrib. Ceylon, (Walker)! Sumatra, (Forbes)! Java, 

 Timor, Borneo. 



j3. Var. mimosoides Bak. in Flor. Brit Ind. II, 267 ; terminal pair 

 of leaflets obtuse, emarginate or retuse, hardly larger than the basal 

 pair; leaflets much smaller than in var. a. G. mimosoides Wall. Cat. 

 5817 (1830). G. ramiflora var. 0. W. and A. Prodr. 293. Rheecle, 

 Hort. Malab. IV, t. 31 ; Lamk, 111. t. 331, f . 1 ? (seems to sliow 1-jugate 

 leaflets only). 



Andamans ; very common in every tidal and beach forest. Distrib. 

 Malabar, Rheede (icon.) ! Ceylon, Wallich ( Cat. n. 5816 C in part ; mixed 

 with cultivated examples of C. polyandra from Madras and erroneously 

 distributed as G. cauliflora )! Sundribuns ; Arracan ; Mattaban and 

 Tenasserim. 



The three plants here included in C. ramiflora have been somewhat misunder- 

 stood by Linnaeus and indeed by most subsequent botanists. That the plant of 

 Rumphius, here treated as subsp. genuina, will have to be kept apart from the 

 other two as a distinct species in any careful monograph of the genus seems to 

 admit of little question. Though mentioned in many works as Indian, no one has 

 ever sent Indian specimens to Calcutta ; the only authors who have actually seen 

 specimens that were not from the Malay Archipelago are Wight and Arnott, 

 Thwaites, and Trimen ; the specimens mentioned by these writers in every case 

 came from Ceylon not from India. No one has ever sent it from the Malay 

 Peninsula. 



It is tolerably certain that the two plants which form what is here termed 



