124 



Remarks on Camloghi Gutla, 



[Jan. 



I confess that I have an objection to this kind of excessive sub- 

 division, inasmuch as, whatever rale i)olds good with respect to 

 genera, must equally apply to orders, and must inevitably lead to the 

 elevation of half our present species to the rank of genera, and an equal 

 proportion of genera to natural orders ; both of which might be avoided 

 by a slight extension of our characters, and still better by a careful and 

 comprehensive investigation of groups of allied species and genera, be- 

 fore attempting their disunion in the formation of new genera and orders. 

 In support of these views, I think I may safely cite the recorded opinion 

 of the first living authority, Mr. Robert Brown. He says, in a leXter to 

 Dr. Graham, referring to the plant wdiich has called forth these remarks, 

 " In your plant the structure of the anther is indeed very remarkable, 

 and might well induce you to consider it a new genus ; but it is right 

 to add, that approaches to this structure, and which serve to explain its 

 analogy with the ordinary structure of the family, exist in Garcinia, with 

 which I suppose your plant w^ould agree in its female flower as w^ell as 

 in fruit." From this concluding caution I imagine that, before estab- 

 lishing a genus on such grounds, he (BroAvn) would have ascertained 

 the structure of the anther in the whole order, marked its variations, 

 and then, and not till then, have determined on the propriety or other- 

 wise of assigning a generic value to its variations : and 1 can scarcely 

 avoid thinking, that, had such a course been followed in that instance, a 

 sectional value only would have been av/arded. 



I confess that a less perfect examination of the order, than that 

 which improved materials has now enabled me to effect, led me 

 into a similar error; on which occasion, I proposed to subdivide 

 the genus Garcinia into four distinct genera.— Garcinia, Mangos- 

 tana, Camhogia, and Stalagmitis (see Madras Journal of Science, 

 vol. 4, page 304). This suggestion has not, so far as I am aware, 

 been yet adopted by any one; and I trust it will not, as I now con- 

 sider it wrong in principle, the variations in structure. there.pointed out, 

 not meriting a higher than sectional value ii'r^'genus so strictly natural. 

 Influenced by this reduced estimate of the relative value of the several 

 structural variations mentioned above, it is my intention, on the present 

 occasion, to keep the old genus together, but divided into sections in 

 accordance with them. I am induced to do so from observing that the 

 variations are limited to the male flowers, and do not on any occasion 

 extend to the female. For example G. Mangostana and G. cornea, are 

 referred to the same section ; the former has 4-8 celled ovaries, and the 

 latter usually 4; in G. Kydiana, Roxburgh describes the berry as being 

 from 4 to 8 seeded, G. Cown from 6 to 8, and most of the others are des- 

 cribed as having as far as 4, or 8 seeds, showing a general want of uni- 



