496 G.King — Materials for a Flora of the Malayan Tenlnsula. "So. 3, 



large, fleshy, corrugated, ovary none. Female flowers in racemes shorter 

 than the panicles of the males and stouter. Flowers '15 in. in diam., 

 on stout puberulous pedicels. Calyx thick, cupular, puberulous, with 

 4 broad triangular segments. Petals 4, broadly triangular, puboruloas, 

 larger than the calyx-segments. Stamens 8, shorter than the petals, 

 the anthers imperfect. The disc a deep fleshy cup with crenate edges. 

 Ovary broadly ovoid, rusty-tomentose, crowned by the large discoid glab- 

 rous obscurely-lobed reflexed stigma. Drupe ovoid-rotund, compix 

 minutely tomentose, fleshy, "6 in. in diam. Engler in DC. M n. Phan. 

 IV, 320. Buchanania auricidata, Blume in Mns. Bot. Lugd. Bat. I, 

 185. Semecarpus ? grandifolia, Wall. Cat., No. 985 (exclude the speci- 

 mens mentioned in the Appendix to the Cat.). 



Penang : Wallich, No. 985. Malacca : Maingay, No. 484 4. Singa- 

 pore ; Kurz, Anderson, No. 69; Ridley, Nos. 444, 1880 and 4775 E. ; 

 Hullett, No. 2-23. Penang : Curtis, No. 1037. 



This is distinguished from the next species by its smaller leaves 

 and panicles and much larger fruit. It is the plant from Penang, 

 issued by Wallich as No. 985 of his Catalogue, which he doubtful'y 

 referred to the genus Semecarpus, as S. ? grandifolia. Along with this 

 however Wallich issued, as noted in the Appendix to his lithographed 

 Catalogue, p. 286) under the same number, and not (as is usual with 

 Wallich's plauts in similar cases) distinguished by any letters, the 

 much larger (although in other respects similar) leaves of another 

 species. The specific name grandifolia is not aj^plicable to the present 

 plant which is the true Buchanania auriculata of Blume (not however 

 of Miquel), although it is applicable to the supplementary sheets of 

 985, one of which, as issued by Wallich is 30 inches in length. I have 

 followed Sir Joseph Hooker and Dr. Engler in retaining Blume's specific 

 name auriculata for the present plant. But, for the supplementary 

 sheets, I do not propose to retain Wallich's name of grandifolia (his 

 •name having really been given to two things), but I propose for them the 

 name Campnosperma Wallichii. In this I do not follow the distinguished 

 Botanists just mentioned, for they call them G. Griffith™, Marehaml. 

 But Marchand's name, in my opinion, ought to be given to the plant on 

 which he founded that species, which (as he mentions in his Monograph) 

 Was Griffith's No. 1109. And this I do in spite of the fact that Griffith's 

 No. 1109 is exactly what Blume named Buchanania macrophylla. There 

 is no doubt that, had Marchand known of Blume's name, he ought to have 

 called his plant Campnosperma macrophylla. But as he did not, and as 

 he was the first to put the plant into the genus Campnosperma, his 

 name C. Grifjithii must I think remain ; and another name must bo 

 found for what Sir Joseph Hooker and Dr. Engler name C. Grifjithii ; 



