Guttifercs.] 



CHINA. 



173 



Bot. 5. p. 27. (non Linn.) — H. petiolatum. Lour. Fl. Cochin. 2. p. 577. (non Linn.)— H. 

 Cochincliense. Lindl. in Hort. Soc. Trans, v. 6. p. 67? (non Lour.) — H.? carneum. Wall. 

 List of East India Plants, n. 4820. 



On account of the three large glandular bodies that alternate with the bundles of stamens, and which 

 are described both by Lamarck and Loureiro, although passed over iu silence by Choisy, this plant, which 

 we have likewise received from Mr. Vachell and Mr. Millett, ought perhaps to form the type of a genus, 

 in which might be included, H. Cochincliense of Loureiro, a plant with obtuse leaves, and H.? coccineum, 

 Wall. List, n. 4823, if indeed this last be not the same with the species from Cochin China. Perhaps also 

 H.? pulchcllum and H. ? horridum of Wallich's List, nos. 4821 and 4822, are congeners. The genus 

 Tridesmos would be also distinguished from Hypericum, by the flowers being- more or less of a red colour. 



Ord. XV. GUTTIFERtE. Juss. 

 1. Garcinia Cochinchensis ; foliis oblongo-lanceolatis, ramulis tetragonis, floribus axill- 

 aribus vel terminalibus brevi-pedtmculatis subracemosis — Chois. in De Cand. Prodr. v. 1. 

 p. 561. ? — Oxycarpus Cochinchensis. Lour. Cochin. 2. p. 796. 



Such is all the character the solitary specimen before us will permit us to give. It does not well accord 

 with the figure quoted by Choisy, in Rumph. Amb. 3. t. 32 ; but it agrees better with Loureiro's description. 

 The genera Garcinia, Xanthocliymus, and Stalagmitis are in great confusion, and require to be studied 

 anew from living specimens. Thus, as Garcinia is at present characterised by both Choisy and Cambessedes, 

 not one species would belong- to it : in all the species, the structure of the male flower is precisely as in 

 Stalagmitis: and even, if we suppose the character of "stamina libera" to allude to the hermaphrodite 

 flower alone, we shall scarcely find any but G. Mangostana to which it is applicable ; the other species 

 being almost without exception dioecious, and not polygamous. In some, no doubt, as in G, paniculata, 

 Roxb. Fl. Ind. (with which it may be remarked, that G. Boobicowa, Roxb. H. Bengh. and G. Ttintook, 

 Roxb. MSS. n. 1064, at the India House, are identical), there are rudiments of stamens in the female 

 flowers : in others, there are stamina with glands instead of anthers, but such flowers cannot be termed 

 hermaphrodite. Perhaps Garcinia may be restricted to the polygamous species, while Stalagmitis (or 

 Brendonia, for we can see no difference between them) includes the truly dioecious ones. As to 

 Xanthocliymus, we believe all are polygamous, and have the male organs alike both iu the male and 

 hermaphrodite flowers; besides, there is in the hermaphrodite, a gland, and iu the male, a lobe of the discoid 

 torus, betw een each bundle of stamens, which is not to be seen in either Garcinia or Staglamitis. Cambes- 

 sedes has properly removed both Staglamitis and Xanthocliymus from the section, having- unilocular fruit. 



1. Calophyllum spectabile ; foliis elliptico-lanceolatis aut rarius ellipticis ntrinque saepius 

 acutis, racemis axillaribus brevissimis pancifloris, sepalis et petalis quatuor. — Willd. Mag. 



Berl. 1811. p. 80?— C. Soulattri. Burm. Ind. p. 121 C. Suriga. Ham. in Roxb. Fl. 



Ind. 2. p. 608. 



Choisy, in De Candolle's Prodromus, says that the flowers are loosely racemose, which is far from the 

 case in our plant: but then he quotes, without doubt, Burman's C. Soidattri, to which, again, Roxburgh 

 refers with equal certainty, as his C. Suriga: Roxburgh's short character, " leaves linear, oblong-, polished, 

 flowers verticilled below the leaves," belongs evidently to our species, although the flowers are really 

 axillary, and not infra-axillary. With regard to the other species in the Flora Indica, they seem to be 

 scarcely known, and even Dr. Wallich does not refer to Roxburgh in his List of East Indian Plants. Yet 

 we believe there can be little doubt, when we compare the descriptions with the specimens, that C. Bintagor, 

 for which Roxburgh quotes Rumph. Amb. 2. t. 71, is C. inophyllum, (jr., of Wallich's List, n. 4841 ; that 

 C. angustifolium is Wallich's C. pulchcrrimiim,w. 4848; and that C.lanceolarium, is C. Tacamahaca, Willd 

 As to C. acuminatum, Lam., or Rumph. Amb. 2. t. 72, usually quoted under C. spectabile, it appears to be 

 a distinct species, with narrow leaves, six inches or more in length. 



