Guttiferm.] 
CHINA. 
173 
Bot. 5. p. 27. (non Linn.) — H. petiolatum. Lour. FI. Cochin. 2. p. 577. (non Linn.)—!!. 
Cochinchense. lAndl. in Hort. Soc. Trans, v. 6. p. 6'7 ? {non Lour.) — H.? carneinn. IVall. 
List of East India Plants, n. 4820. 
Ou account of the three large glandular bodies that alternate with the bundles of stamens, and which 
are described both by Lamarck and Loureiro, although passed over in silence by Choisy, this plant, which 
we have likewise received from Mr. Vachell and Mr. Millett, ought perhaps to form the type of a genus, 
in which might be included, H. Cochinchense of Loureiro, a plant with obtuse leaves, and H.? coccineum. 
Wall. List, n. 4823, if indeed this last be not the same with the species from Cochin China. Perhaps also 
M.f pulchellum and H.? horridum of Wallich’s List, nos. 4821 and 4822, are congeners. The genus 
Tridesmos would be also distinguished from Hypericum, by the dowers being more or less of a red colour. 
Ord. XV. GUTTIFERiE. Juss. 
1. Garcinia Cockinchensis ; folii.s oblongo-lanceolatis, ramulis tetragonis, floribiis axill- 
aribus vel terminalibus brevi-peduiiculatis subracemosis. — Chois, in De Cand. Prodr. v. 1. 
p. 561. ? — Oxycarpus Cochincbeiisis. Lour. Cochin. 2. p. 796. 
Such is all the character the solitary specimen before us will permit us to give. It does not well accord 
with the figure quoted by Choisy, in Rumph. Amb. 3. t. 32 ; but it agrees better with Loureiro’s description. 
The genera Garcinia, Xanthochymus, and Stalagmitis are in great confusion, and require to be studied 
anew from living specimens. Thus, as Garcinia is at present characterised by both Choisy and Cambessedes, 
not one species would belong to it : in all the species, the structure of the male dower is precisely as in 
Stalagmitis'. and even, if we suppose the character of “stamina libera” to allude to the hermaphrodite 
dower alone, we shall scarcely find any but G. Mangostana to which it is applicable; the other species 
being almost without exception dioecious, and not polygamous. In some, no doubt, as in G. panicidata, 
Roxb. FI. Ind. (with which it may be remarked, that G. Boobicowa, Roxb. H. Bengh. and G. Tuntook, 
Roxh. MSS. n. 1064, at the India House, are identical), there are rudiments of stamens in the female 
dowers : in others, there are stamina with glands instead of anthers, but such dowers cannot be termed 
hermaphrodite. Perhaps Garcinia may he restricted to the polygamous species, while Stalagmitis (or 
Brendonia, for we can see no difference between them) includes the truly dioecious ones. As to 
Xanthochymus, we believe all are polygamous, and have the male organs alike both in the male and 
hermaphrodite dowers ; besides, there is in the hermaphrodite, a gland, and in the male, a lobe of the discoid 
torus, between each bundle of stamens, which is not to be seen in either Garcinia or Staglumitis. Cambes- 
sedes has pi'operly removed both Staglamitis and Xanthochymus from the section, having unilocular fruit. 
1. Calophyllum spectabile ; foliis elliptico-lanceolatis aut rarius ellipticis utrinque saepius 
acutis, racemis axillaribus brevissimis paucifloris, sepalis et petalis qiiatuor — Willd. Mag. 
Berl. 1811. p. 80? — C. Soulattri. Burnt. Ind. p. 121. — C. Suriga. Ham. in Boxb. FI. 
Ind. 2. p. 608. 
Choisy, in De Candolle’s Prodromus, says that the dowers are loosely racemose, which is far from the 
case in our plant : but then he quotes,' without doubt, Burman’s C. Soulattri, to which, again, Roxburgh 
refers with equal certainty, as his C. Suriga : Roxburgh’s short character, “ leaves linear, oblong, {polished, 
dowers verticilled below the leaves,” belongs evidently to our species, although the dowers are really 
axillary, and not infra-axillary. With regard to the other species in the Flora Indica, they seem to be 
scarcely known, and even Dr. Wallich does not refer to Roxburgh in his List of East Indian Plants. Yet 
we believe there can be little doubt, when we compare the descriptions with the specimens, that C. Bintagor, 
for which Roxburgh quotes Rumph. Amb. 2. t. 71, is C. inophyllum, G., of Wallich’s List, n. 4841 ; that 
C. angustifolium is Wallich’s C. pulcherrimum, n. 4848; and that C.lanceolarium, is C. Tacamahaca, Willd 
As to C. acuminatum, Lam., or Rumph. Amb. 2. t. 72, usually quoted under C. spectabile, it appears to be 
a distinct species, with narrow leaves, six inches or more in length. 
