496 Gr. ~S.ing — 'MaleriaU for a Flora of the Malaijan Fenimutu, [No. 3, 
large, fleshy, coi-mgated, ovarj none. Female ir.OirESS in racemes shorier 
tkau the paiiicles of the raalea mid stouter. Matters '15 in. in diain,, 
on stout pubenilous pedicela, Cahjx thick, cupular, puberalous, with 
4 broad tnangular segments. Petals 4, ht^ofidly ti-iangalar, puheruloas^ 
larger than the caljx-segments. Statnens 8, shortei' than tbe petals, 
the autbers imperfect. The disc a deep flesliy cup with crenate edges. 
Ovary broadly ovoid, ruBty-tometiitose, crowned by the large discoid glab- 
rous obscurely-lobed reflexed stigma. Drupe ovoid -rotimd, compressed, 
minntely tomentose, fleshy, '6 in, in diam, KngJer in DO. Mon. Plian. 
IV, 320* Bitchanania aiiriculata. Blame in Mns. Dot. Lugd. Bat. T, 
185. Semecaf-piis t grandifolia, Wall, Cat,, No. 985 (exclude the speci- 
mens mentioncMi in tbe Appendix to the Cat,). 
Penang : Wallicli, No. 965, Malacca ; Maingm,y^ No, 484/4, Singa- 
pore ; Kurz, Anderson, No, 69 ; Ridley, Nos. 444, 1880 and 4775 E. ; 
Hullett, No. 223. Pesiang : Curtis, No. 1037. 
This is distingnished from the next species by its smaller leaves 
and panicles and much larger fruit. It is the plnnt from Penangf, 
issued by WalUch as No. 985 of his Catalogue, which he doablful'y 
refer j-ed to the genus Setnecwpns, as 5. / grandifolia. Along with this 
however Wallich issued, as noted in the Appendix to bis lithographed 
Catalogue, p. 286) nnder the some number, and not (as is usual with 
Wallich's plants in similar cases) distinj^aished hy any letters, the 
much larger (although in other lesperta similai') leaves of another 
species. The ^>eciB.c name grandifolia is not applicable to the pl^esent 
plant which is the ti-ue Buchanania auncuhita of Blume (not however 
of Miqael), altliough it is applicable to the supplemenfary sheets of 
985, one of which, as issued by Wallich is 30 inches in length. 1 have 
followed Sir Joseph Hooker and Dr. Engfer in i^etaining Blume's specific 
name anriculata for the present plant. But, for the supplementary 
sheets, I do not propose to retain Wallich's name of grandifolia (his 
name having really been given to two things), but I propose for them tlto 
name Campnmperma Wallichii, In this J do not follow the distinguished 
Botanists just mentioned, for they call them 0. Qri^thii^ Marchand, 
But Morcbaad's name, in my opinion, ought to be given to the plant on 
which hefonnded that species, which (as be mentions in his Monograph) 
was Griffith's No, 1109. And this I do in spite of the fact that Griffith's 
No. J 109 is exactly what Blame named Buchmmnia «>}aciophylla. There 
is no donbttha^, had Marchand known of Blumo*s name, lie ought to have 
called his plant Campnospa'ma macrophylla. But as he did not, and as 
he was the itirst to put the plant into the genus Oampttospertrtay his 
name C. Crrij^liltii must I think remain ; and another name must be 
found for what Sir Josepli Hooker and Dr. Eagler name C. Gri£lihii ; 
