THE HERBARIUM AMUOINENSE. 
361 
Dr Roxburgh, I then called a Capparis. The following 
note I took on the spot. 
Arbor ramis teretibus, pubescentibus, fuscis^ elevato-puncta- 
tis, sulco e petiolorura basi decurrente utrinque exaratis. Folia 
maxima, alterna, petiolata, ternata; foliola petiolata, integra, 
integerrima, supra nitida, subtus tomentosa, venis reticulata, 
plana ; lateralia oblonga, acuminata, ad basin posterius gibbo- 
siora ; terminale latius, obtusum. Petiolus communis mediocris, 
basin versus incrassatus, apicem versus semiteres, pubescens : 
partialium laterales brevissimi; terminalis mediocris, teres, 
utrinque incrassatus. Stipulae nullae. 
Pedunculus fructiferus axillaris, soL'tarius, fructu terminal! 
indivisus, rudimentis quasi flosculorum abortivorum plurium 
lateralium notatus. Bacca supera, calyce deciduo nudata, glo- 
bosa, striata, corticosa, unilocularis. Nuciculsa quinque pulpo 
filamentoso arillatae. 
From this it would seem that it differs from the descrip- 
tion of Willdenow, in having the flowers disposed in un- 
divided racemes, or perhaps spikes, while his plant has 
panicles. 
Cajim-guliir, p. 168. 
This may be another Sandoricum. 
Caput LV. 
Gajanus, p. 170, t. 65. 
By Thunberg and Willdenow (Sp. PL ii. 604) this was 
considered as the Inocarpus edulis of the younger Linnseus ; 
but the Compiler of the Encyclopedic (ii. 576, and iii. 253), 
on account of the form of the fruit, as represented by 
Rumphius, doubted of the accuracy of this quotation, and 
considered the tree as related to the Aleurites, or Euphor- 
bia?. On farther consideration, however, it would seem 
that the Compiler v/as satisfied of the quotation having 
been proper, as he repeats it in the Supplement (iii. 151). 
