1839] Stalagmitis Gambogioides, and Laurus Cassia, 123 



acter of Hebradendron, a new genus of Guttiferce, and that to which the 

 tree belongs." 



This is an excellent paper, and embodying as it does much very in- 

 teresting information, well repays the trouble of a careful perusal. I 

 cannot however adopt Dr. Graham's conclusions as to the propriety of 

 elevating this plant to the rank of a distinct genus, nor, supposing that 

 abler botanists than either Dr. G. or myself consider ourselves, admit it 

 as such into the system of plants, do I think his name can be adopted. 

 The question, whether or not this is the Gamboge plant of Ceylon, I 

 look upon as set at rest by the evidence adduced in the ''Remarks." All 

 therefore that I have now to consider are simply the following botanical 

 questions — 1st, whether this plant ought to form the type of a genus dis- 

 tinct from Garcifiia? — ^and 2d, if so, whether it ought to receive a new 

 name ? The first of these questions I answer in the negative, because I 

 do not think it sufficiently distinguished from Garcinia by the solitary: 

 character assigned — the peculiar structure of the anther. The second 

 I equally answer in the negative, because this plant is undoubtedly the 

 type of the genus Camhogia of Linnaeus, whose name therefore ought to 

 have been retained. My reasons for the first of these conclusions, being 

 fully stated page 122 and 123 of my Illustrations, I subjoin the passage. 



" If the precedent established by Dr. Graham in the formation of his 

 genus Hebradendron be followed, we may, I fear, soon expect to see the 

 off-sets from Garc'mia about as numerous as its species now are, since 

 that genus is separated on account of a variation in a single point of 

 structure, and without reference to analogous forms met with in other 

 species. The only point in which it differs from Garcinia, as defined in 

 our Prodromus is — in having 1 -celled circumscissile anthers — while the 

 more usual form in that genus is to have them two-celled, with introrse, 

 longitudinal dehiscence. Should this be considered a satisfactory reason 

 for its removal, then G. Kydiana Roxb., which has a four-sided connec- 

 tivLim, with a polleniferous cell in each face, must equally be separated 

 IVonTthe genus, as welF'circ-rvnother species of which I possess specimens 

 from Mergui, the anthers of which are 1-celled, dehiscing transversely 

 across the apex. Another variation of structure, which has been long 

 observed in a few species of the genus, will equally demand separation, 

 as being of at least equal generic value ; I allude to those in which the 

 stamens of the male flower are united into four thick fleshy androphores, 

 with a highly developed sterile pistil in the centre. Here then, assum- 

 ing that we are justified in assigning generic value to such variations of 

 structure, limited as they are to the male organization, are four distinct 

 genera, and all, so far as such artificial characters can make them, equal- 

 ly stabl?. 



