JACK'S LETTERS TO WALLICH, 1819-1821. 229 



but not ripe. The seeds are enveloped in an umbilical aril, and 

 the capsules burst internally, but are not quite distinct. An affinior 

 Eutaceis? I also found the stamina twenty in number. 



Of Ternstnemia I have two more species. 2 '' Roxburgh's T. 

 trilocularis might be any or all of them and must I think be 

 dropped. Query might not the trilocular Ternstroemia be separat- 

 ed from those with two cells and few seeds? They appear to me 

 to differ very widely, see a figure of the fruit in Mirbel's Elemens 

 de Bot. 



In Tetracera arborescens, 2 - 1 I fell into a mistake: the only 

 one I had then seen was an old sturdy individual that had 

 choked its support, and was then standing alone as an independent 

 tree, whereupon I called it " arborescens." but on seeing a greater 

 number since, I find it to be a real climber, though a very strong 

 one. Ought therefore the specific name " arborescens " to be re- 

 tained, or should it be changed? Had I known its real character 

 at first, I certainly would not have so called it. It comes near to 

 T. euryandra : the corolla is really three-petalled and the calyx 

 hve-sepalled ! for the calyx is persistent and has ciliate leaflets, 

 which is not the case with the corolla. 



Xo. 3. will I think please you. but you must observe that 

 though called an appendix to the Malayan Miscellanies it has been 

 kept back till we hear what is done at home about the great flower. 

 If it is brought forward in England, then this is to be suppressed 

 and not published : if not. then this may be used in the event 

 of the French getting hold of it, as a proof of priority of publica- 

 tion. So you understand that it is at present " inedita." 282 dost 

 thou comprehend. 



Rafflesia. Dryobalanops. Sagns, and Nepenthes are subjects 

 of no small interest. Tell me what you think of Stagmaria : 2 * 3 



280. These Ternstroemias would be T. serrata from Pulau Xias. and 

 T. acuminata from Tappanooly. 



281. Tetracera arborescens. Jack in Malayan Miscellanies, i. (1820) 

 part 5, p. 244. 



282. The apendix to the Malayan Miscellanies never became a public- 

 ation. 



283. Jack wrote a very full account of his Stagmaria verniciflua 

 and put it into print, for the third part of his Descriptions of Malayan 

 Plants. Then apparently he withdrew it; for as he tells us after the des- 

 cription had been printed in 1821 and when he was sending to AVallich a 

 copy in what we must recognise as proof, a suspicion crossed his mind 

 that Stagmaria instead of being new, was but Gluta Benghas: and it is 

 quite evident that he had no intention of publishing unless he could make 

 sure that Stagmaria and Gluta are distinct. With one or more copies out 

 in print the description was reprinted in Hooker's Companion to the 

 Botanical Magazine, i. (1835) p. 267. and so stands in books as if mbi' ..- 

 ed by Jack. Wallieh later mis-identified Melanorrhaa WaJlichii, which he 

 had collected in Singapore, as this Stagmaria of Jack. It is now accepted 

 that Stagmaria verniciflua is Gluta Benghas. the well-known Benghas tree 

 of Malaya. 



The date of this pamphlet of Jack's cited as Descriptions of Malayan 

 Plants, iii. has not been known with certainty; and now it appears that 

 we must consider the date of the publication of Stagmaria not as 1823 but 

 as 1835, and the place Hooker's Companion to the Botanical Magazine. 



E. A. Soc. No. 73, 1916. 



