101 
tea odorata. Tin's plant liaB been named Synaptea grandiftora by Kurz, 
( Jonrn. A.S., Beng., 1870, 2, 65), and Anisoptera odorata Kurz, (For. Flor. 
Burm. I, 112), while Dyer lias identified it with llnpea grandijfora. Wall, 
Cat- 958, and reduced it to Vatica grandiftora (F.B.L, i., 301). 
The characters of the genus Synaptea, as given by its author, are 
practically those of Vatica, Linnoeus (Mantissa II., p. 152-3, No. 
1311), except that, whereas in the Linnsaan description nothing is 
said about the fruit or its relation to the calyx, Griffith distinctly 
explains that he has given the name Synaptea because the ovary is 
adnate to the calyx. Ho docs not say to what extent adnate, but, 
in fruiting specimens of his Syt>aptea odorata, the adhesion extends to 
the lower part only. In the 11 Mantissa " of Linnseus, only one species 
of Vatica is described, viz., V rhmends ; and of the specimen thus 
named in the Linna'an Herbarium. Sir J. (r. Smith publishes a figure 
(Smith Tc, incd., t. 36.). This figure however does not show clearly 
whether the base of the ovary is, or is not, adherent to the calyx, 
and the fruit is not figured at all. A reference to Linnaeus* speci- 
men ought to settle what V. chinensis really is ; hut unfortunately 
it has not settled it. I have not myself examined the actual Lin- 
na?an specimen ; but the opinions of botanists who have examined 
it vary as to its identity. The plant is generally admitted not to 
be of Chinese origin, for no Dipterocarp is known to inhabit 
China. Wight and Arnot are of opinion (Prod. 84) that Vatica 
chinensis is the same as Vatica laccifera, W. A. (Sliorea Talura, 
Roxh.— fide Dyer). Alph De Candolle (Prod. XVf., 2, p. 619) keeps up 
the species V. chinensis, while Dyer (VI. Br. Ind., I, 302) reduces it to 
Vatica Roxburghiana, Blume (Mus. Bot. Lugd. Bat. II, 31. t. 7.), 
Blame's Vatica Roxburghiana, being, as the citations and figure given 
by that author show, the Valeria Roxburghiana of Wight's Illustrations, 
p. 87, and Icones t. 26, It cannot be demonstrated, therefore, either from 
Lin mens* description or specimen, or from Smith's figure of the latter, 
whether Linna?us intended his genus Vatica to include only plants with 
the ovary and fruit free from the calyx, or whether plants in which 
there is such partial adhesion might not also be admitted. If the 
latter were the case there would be no occasion to keep up the genus 
Synaptea. This is the view adopted by Messrs. Hooker and Bentham, 
who remark of Synaptea, " ex descriptione auctoris veri similiter ad 
Va/icam referenda est." This view is also adopted by Dyer, in " Hooker's 
Flora of British India," whec he reduces Synnptea odorata, Griff., to the 
genus Vatica, Section Eu- Vatica. This view is also to a certain extent 
adopted by Burck who (Ann. Jard. Bot. Buitenzorg) makes Synaptea 
a section of Vatica, characterised by having the lobes of the frniting 
3U3 
