128 



Remarks on Cainhoiyia Gut la, 



[Jan. 



ino-aniost valuable contribution to botanical science : on this occasion 

 in connection with medicine. In this work I find Dr. Lindley has add- 

 ed the weight of his authority, to tliat of those who adopt Murray's 

 Stalagmitis in preference to Roxburgh's Xanthochijmus. This he does 

 for the reasons adduced by Dr. Graham ; namely, that Mr. Brown had 

 examined Murray's specimen and ascertained that it consists of two 

 plants, probably of two genera, one of which, in flower, is a Xanthochy- 

 7)ius,ih.c other, not in flower, supposed to be Graham's Helradendron^ 

 Having expressed my belief that Xanthochijmus does not belong to this 

 natural order, and having no new species to add, nor other information 

 to communicate respecting it, I did intend to have noticed that genus in 

 this place. But as I have said above that, in my opinion, Stalagmitis 

 ought to be suppressed and Xanihochi/mns estuhlished in its room, I feel 

 now called upon to state more fully my reasons for thinking so — I shall 

 commence by extracting from the "Companion to the BotanicalMagazine*' 

 the passage of Mr. Brown's letter, quoted by Dr. Graham as his autho- 

 rity for saying that the generic name Xajilhochymus must be dropped in 

 favour of Stalagmitis, " The plant sent pasted by Konig to Sir Joseph 

 Banks, as one specimen, I have ascertained to be made up of two plants, 

 and very probably of two genera. The union was concealed by sealing 

 wax. The portion in flower, and which agrees in structure with Mur- 

 ray's account, is, I have no doubt, the Xanthocliymus ovalifolius of Rox- 

 burgh. Stalagmitis aud Xanthochymus are therefore one genus, as Cam- 

 bessides has already observed, giving the preference to the earlier name 

 of Murray. This, however, forms but a small part of the wdiole speci- 

 men, the larger portion being, I am inclined to think, the same with 

 your plant, of which I have seen, and I believe still possess, the speci- 

 men you sent to Don.* The structure, however, of this greater portion 

 cannot be ascertained from the few very young flower-buds belonging 

 to it. It approaches also very closely, in its leaves especially, to that 

 specimen in Hermann's herbarium, which may be cnnsjiderexl.as the type 

 of Linnseus' Camhogia gutta. A loose fruiT," pasted on the sheet with 

 Konig's pla.it, probably belongs to the larger portion, and resembles 

 Gaertner's Morella. 



So far all appears clearly in favour of Stalagmitis, and had Murray in 

 drawing up his character rigidly confined himself to the description of 

 the flowers before him, I should at once have adopted his name in pre- - 

 ference to Roxburgh's. But on turning to his character, as given in 

 Schreber's Genera Plantarum, we find a 4-leaved calyx, a 4-petaled co- 

 rolla, and a 4-lobed stigma, combined with pentadelphous stamens, 3- 



One of those received from Mrs. Walker. 



