1897.] D. Prain — Some additional Leguminosre. 457 



not to be employed instead of the name Galedupa, used by Lamarck in 1786, and 

 though spontaneously abandoned by that author in 1797, readopted by Roxburgh in 

 1814. 



The name Galedupa, if we quibble over refinements of spelling, does indeed 

 antedate the name Pongamia by 17 years and so cautious an authority as Taubert in 

 the Natiirlichen Pjianzenfamilien has recently followed Roxburgh's usage and re- 

 adopted Lamarck's earlier name, thus abandoning the name familiarised by the usage 

 of authorities like De Candolle, Bentham, Hooker, Wight, Kurz, Baillon and a host 

 of others. 



The usage readopted by Taubert appears to the writer to be highly inadvi- 

 sable (1.) because the more familiar name (in the form Pongam at all events) long 

 antedates the name Galedupa ; and (2.) because the use of the name Galedupa at all 

 was based on the identification of Caju Galedupa Rumphius (Herb. Amboin. ii. t. 13) 

 with Pongamia glabra. This is so manifestly an impossible identification that one 

 marvels at its ever having been suggested ; Caju Galedupa, which is a Sindora, is 

 figured as having equally-pinnate leaves, dehiscent pods, and an arillate funiculus, 

 whereas in Pongamia glabra the leaves are unequally pinnate, the pods indehiscent, 

 the seeds not arillate and with a small hilum. Moreover Rumphius knew and 

 figured (Herb. Amboin iii. t. 117) Pongamia glabra itself, under its Malay name 

 Malapari. That Lamarck had detected his mistake before it was formally pointed 

 out in 1803 by Ventenat, is abundantly clear from his having in 1797 (Illustr. t. 603) 

 substituted the name Pungamia for the Encylopsedia name Galedupa of 1786. 



These being the facts of the case it disconcerts one to find that Kuntze 

 desires to deliberately revert to Lamarck's error ; not only so, he proposes to employ 

 a modified form of Rumphius' term Caju (m), — which is precisely the synonym that 

 cannot possibly belong to the plant described by Lamarck — as the name of the plant 

 to which Lamarck's definition applies. Perversity in bibliography could scarcely 

 exceed this ; nor perhaps could perversity in mere nomenclature. The Latin word 

 Arbor is, it has been tacitly admitted, tabued as a generic name ; it seems hardly fair 

 that, even under the aegis of Kuntze's authority, its Malay equivalent, — erroneously 

 transliterated, it is true — should be permitted to assert itself. 



The Malaparius of the Herb. Amboin. was referred by Loureiro, in opposition 

 altogether to Rumphius' description of the pod, and in spite of his having figured the 

 leaflets as opposite, to the genus Pterocarpus. Miquel (Flor. Ind. Bat. i. 1082 addend.) 

 was the first to remove it from Pterocarpus ; Miquel gave it generic rank, associat- 

 ing with it a plant collected by Teysmann in Sumatra ; this plant is unfortunately 

 not represented in Herb. Calcutta. In the Genera Plantarum (i. 465) the possibility 

 is suggested that Rumphius' and Teysmann's plant may be specifically distinct ; 

 there is, however, nothing in Miquel's brief description to favour this suggestion ; 

 on the contrary it seems clear that the ' Malapari ' collected by Teysmann in Sumatra 

 is Pongamia glabra just as the ' Malapari ' described by Rumphius from Amboina and 

 the ' Malapari ' recently collected by Derry in Malacca both most certainly belong 

 to it. It is, however, to be noted that while Rumphius' figure clearly indicates the 

 typical plant, Derry's plant belongs to var. xerocarpa as, from the description 

 of the pubescent petiolules, evidently does Teysmann's. 



89. DERRIS Lour. 



[The name Derris was proposed in 1790 for a genus that had already in 1775 

 been named Lcguelia.~] 



