Gmelina. 227 



pubescens; folia opposita, solide chartacea, oblonga, vel 

 obovato-oblonga, basi truncata vel late cuneata. apice 

 acuta vel breviter acuminata, adulta utrinque glabra, nervis 

 subpubescentibus, nervis secundariis utrinque 6— 7(— 8), 

 nonnullis glandulis majusculis sub nervos infimos; inflores- 

 centiee terminales, pyramidales, basi foliosae, cymulis in axillis 

 bractearum lanceolatarum foliacearum, 0.5—1 cM. longa- 

 rum; calyx obsolete 5-dentatus vel truncatus dense adpresse 

 pubescens, interdum nonnullis glandulis majusculis sufFultus, 

 0.4 cM. longus et diametro; corolla, tubo 1.0—1.05 cM. 

 longo, parte inferiore glabro, ceteroquin cum lobis extus 

 adpresse pubescente, intus glabro; limbo obliquo bilabiato, 

 laciniis 4 subaequalibus 0.7 cM. longis, majore 1 cM. 

 longo, intus minute pubescente; stamina inclusa, fllamentis 

 glabris vel nonnullis pilis glanduliferis sufFulta ;'5?i/Zus flli- 

 formis, nonnullis pilis glanduliferis suffultus, stigmate 

 inaequaliter bifidus; ovarium glabrum. 



New-Guinea: Schlechter, no. 17042, in the woods of 

 the Kaui-mountains, 1000 M., flow, on Dec. 25th, 1908. 



A species, well characterized by its obovate-oblong leaves, 

 its truncate, pubescent calyx, and its glabrous ovary. 



Doubtful species: 



12. G- integrifolia Hunter ex Ridl. in Journ. As. Soc. Straits, 

 LIII, 101 (Sept. 1909j; Hall. f.. Med. 's Rijks Herb. Leid. no. 

 37, 58 (sub G. villosa). — A large shrub, with awl-shaped, 

 acute, horizontal spines; leaves usually entire, opposite, petioled, 

 ovate, obtuse, roughish above, downy below; racemes simple, 

 terminal, few- flowered; flowers large, yellow; structure as in the 

 generic character; drupe rounded, smooth, of a greenish yellow; 

 pyrene obovate, 3-celIed, smooth; one cell barren; seeds solitary, 

 obovate, concave without, flat within. 



Distribution: Penang. 



Hallier, I.e., thinks that it is identical with G. villosa, and 

 decides in this sense, apparently from the description only. It 

 is our opinion, that we are not justified to do so, not having 

 been able to examine an authentical specimen. It certainly is not 



