630 
THE GAMBOGE OF COMMERCE. 
for its boundary ; but beyond this it breaks 
short of the trap ranges, and the dislocation 
runs north, through the interior of the basin 
or compartment, towards Nakanary. The 
fracture, in this instance, departs from its 
usual course, and excludes the northern part 
of the Carnatic from the level of the table- 
land. The eastern Ghauts preserve nearly 
the same character, until reaching the lati- 
tude of the Naggery hills, where green fel- 
spar strata again occur. The connection of 
these with the Ghauts might be determined 
by taking their direction ; as long as the 
direction of the strata continues E. and W., 
while that of the ghauts is N. andS., a pro- 
gressive change or succession of strata may 
be looked for : and different rocks, which 
originally had nothing to connect them into 
a mountain chain, receive, by cross fracture, 
the new character of elevation in a common 
line. 
Of the Himalayan chain we are told that 
the principal valleys are perpendicular to its 
direction, running N. E. and that the es- 
carpments are generally on the N. W. side, 
while the S. E. is shelving ; but we are en- 
tirely ignorant regarding the direction of 
strata, whether the chain in its progress 
crosses many different kinds of rock in suc- 
cession, or whether there are continuous 
rocks of anyone kind extending from Bootan 
to Cashmere. Gneiss is said to be the 
most predominant of the primitive rocks, and 
strange to say ‘‘ gneiss reigns paramount in 
the Andes” : the fact seems to be that all 
granite, when fully exposed to view in large 
masses, is more or less stratified ; and hence 
is as liable to be called gneiss as granite. 
Much of this gneiss may on comparison 
prove the same as our primitive trap, which 
appears to be a very widely extended rock, 
for green granite is mentioned as entering 
into the composition of the Hindoo Koosh. 
The next paper we shall quote is on 
remarks on the TREE WHICH PRO- 
DUCES THE GAMBOGE OF COM- 
MERCE ill consequence of the following 
observations on it, by Dr. Graham, Profes- 
sor of Botany in Edinburgh, communicated 
by him in a letter dated I2th March, 1836. 
“In consequence of having received spe- 
cimens from Mrs. Walker of the tree 
which in Ceylon jnelds gamboge, I have 
been attending to the subject lately, and, on 
Monday last, read some observations to the 
Royal Society (of Edinburgh) about it. I 
have been obliged to dissent wholly from 
Arnott and you, that it is the Xanthochy- 
mus ovalifolius, and Arnott now agrees with 
me so far, but he has fallen into at least as 
great a blunder. It is undoubtedly, as I 
think, the Garcinia (Mangostana Goert.) 
morella of Desrousseaux and Goertner. 
Arnott now thinks it Garcinia Zeylanicttf 
which it cannot be, if Roxburgh describes 
this with any degree of truth. In fact the 
Garcinia morella, which I have said it is, is 
no Garcinia. Murray says the tree is Sialag- 
mitis Cambogioides, but his description will 
not apply to my plant, from which I have 
a great quantity of excellent gamboge. I 
have sent a specimen to Mr. Don to request 
that he will compare it with the specimens 
in the Bankean Herbarium, from which 
Murray’s description was taken. If the 
same, the generic name Stalagmitis may 
yet be retained, and the description only 
altered. If not the same, it must form the 
type of a new genus, to which I find Garci- 
nia elliptica of Wallich also belongs ; it 
is especially characterized by the stamens, of 
of which 1 send you a figure.” 
The point on which Dr. Graham finds it 
necessary wholly to dissent from us is thus 
briefly stated at page 102 of the Pro- 
dromus. “ Thei’e can now be little doubt 
of this (Xanthochymus ovalifolius) being 
the only plant in Ceylon that yields gam- 
boge fit for the arts, and that consequently 
the specific name of Gambogia gulta Linn, 
ought to have been applied to this species 
and not to Garcinia Gambogia)'' 
The evidence contained in Dr. Graham’s 
letter seems so completely to invalidate the 
correctness of our statement, that it might 
appear useless to attempt any refutation ; 
yet I am not satisfied that he is either whol- 
ly right, or that we are wholly wrong. I 
do not think him right in considering the 
tree of which he has got specimens, as the 
only one that produces gamboge fit to be 
used in the arts, nor do I think it is the one 
which produces the true Ceylon gamboge. 
I do not think so, because it has been long 
and well known, that there are two sorts in 
use, one from the eastward, Siam,Cambogia, 
China ; and the other from Ceylon : the lat- 
ter considered inferior to the former. The 
gamboge, from the tree in question, speci- 
mens of which I have seen, is apparently of 
the best quality, and much superior to the 
common Cej^lon gamboge, having a fine, 
rather light, colour and glassy fracture. The 
