278 OBSERVATIONS ON PLANTS 



greater decurrence of the lamina being on the outer or 

 posterior margin of the footstalk. This Indian species^ 

 which may be named C. Boxhirghii, is the Capparis trifohata 

 of Dr. Roxbm-gh's manuscripts, but not Nllrvala of liortus 

 Malabaricus {vol. S,p. 49, t. 42), as he considers it. I 

 have little doubt of its being also the plant described as 

 C. Tapia, by Vahl {si/md. 3, p. 61), his specific character 

 well according with it, and not applying, as far as relates 

 to the petals, to any known species of America. But as 

 this character is adopted by Sir James Smith (fa Bees's 

 Cyclop), it may likewise be C. Tapia of the Linnean her- 

 barium ; a conjecture the more probable as Linnaeus has 

 distinguished his Tapia by its ovate petals from gynandra, 

 in which they are said to be lanceolate {Sp. pi. ed. 2, p. 

 637). This celebrated herbarium, however, is here of no 

 authority, for Linnaeus was never in possession of sufficient 

 materials to enable him to understand either the structure 

 and limits of the genus Crateva, or the distinctions of its 

 species ; and the specific name in question, under which he 

 originally included all the species of the genus, ought surely 

 to be applied to an American plant, at least, and if possible, 

 to that of Piso, with whom it originated. It is hardly to be 

 supposed that the plant intended by Piso can now with 

 certainty be determined ; the only species from Brazil, 

 however, with which I am acquainted, well accords with 

 his figure and short description. This Brazilian species is 

 readily distinguishable both from C. Adansonii and Rox- 

 burghii, by the form of its petals, which, as in all the other 

 226] American speciesj are narrow-oblong or lanceolate ; and 

 from C. gynandra by the shortness of its stipes genitaliumj 

 or torus. 



Crateva Tapia, so constituted, is, on the authority of a 

 fragment communicated by Professor Schrader, the Cleome 

 arborea of that author {in Gcett. Anzeig. 1821, j5. 707, 

 De Cand. Prodr. \,j). 242) ; nor is there anything in the 

 character of C. acuminata of De Candolle {Prodr. 1, p. 

 243), which does not well apply to our plant. 



C. Tapia, as given by M. De Candolle {op. cit.), is cha- 

 racterised chiefly on the authority of Plumier's figure, in 



