178 
CHINA. 
[HomalinecB. 
linearibus, erectis. Petala cuneato-oblonga, convoluta, apice emai'ginata. Stamina 5, longitudine corollse, 
petalis inclusa: filamenta siibulata: anthercB ovate biloculares. Discus carnosus planus, fundum calycis 
tegens. Germen ovatum disco semi-immersum, at tamen ei non adherens, biloculare : stylus filiforrais petala 
tequans, teres : stigma capitatum. “ Drupa parva, oblongo-ovata, scabra, rubra ; nucula oblonga, bisulca, 
bilocularis.” Lour. 
The above description, together with the accompanying figure, will, we trust, reclaim this beautiful species 
from obscurity. There cannot be the smallest doubt of its being the plant intended by Linnaeus, and we 
think there is as little of its being that of Loureiro, notwithstanding the many little discrepancies between 
his account of it and ours. Loureiro states that his plant is furnished “ aculeis multis, sparsis, solitariis, 
rectis, brevibus;” this distinction is, however, omitted byDe Candolle, who says of Loureiro’s plant, “ramis 
inermibus,” and rightly, too, for it appears that Loureiro drew up this part of his character to suit Pluck- 
net’s Phyt. t. 122. f. 4, which he quotes as a synonym, but which is an East Indian, not a Chinese plant, 
and more allied to Zizyphus, if indeed it has any thing to do with this natural order. Again, Loureiro 
says, “ folia subcrenata,” which is not correct, although the leaves, from the strong nerves beneath, do 
exhibit a somewhat undulated margin. His “ calyx 5-dentatus, minimus,” is obviously a mistake for the 
small hemisphaerical tube ; while his “petala 10 lanceolata sequalia erecta,” comprehend both the calycine 
segments and the petals, the latter being bis “ interiora quiuque amplectentia stamina.” The remainder of 
his description coincides with our plant. We ourselves have not seen the fruit. — We now come to Poiret’s 
Rhamnus lineatus, which De Candolle makes distinct: on consulting his description, all he says of the 
thorns is, “ les stipules forment, a la base des petioles, de petites epines tres-courtes et aigues and these, 
although we agree Avith Linnseus in not calling them thorns, are precisely Avhat we have seen. He 
describes the flowers as solitary — “ solitaires et laterales dans I’aisselle des feuilles,” and Ave have occasionally 
observed the racemes reduced to one flower; but Ave rather suspect that part of his character to be made 
merely to accord Avith Burm. Zeyl. t. 88, which he cites ; and in this we are confirmed by what follows the 
above extract — “ cependant vers I’extremite des branches elles forment souvent une petite grappe presque 
terminate,” as in our specimens. It is obvious to any one Avho is in the habit of consulting the Encyclopedie 
Methodique, that Poiret and Lamarck, Avhen they had not sufficient materials of their oAvn, borrowed from 
other authors Avithout acknoAvledgment : and, in the present instance, not only is this true Avith regard to the 
solitary flowers, but also as to the fruit, the description of Avhich, “ une petite baie arrondie,” is evidently 
taken from Burman’s figure just quoted. Poiret’s analysis of the flower, and description of the leaves, even 
to the little terminal bristle or mucro, exactly agree Avith what is noAv before us. Thus, Ave trust, Ave have 
made out satisfactorily, that the Rhamnus lineatus of Linnaeus, of Loureiro, and of Poiret, are all one and 
the same plant. Of the older synonyms quoted by these authors, thei’e can be no doubt of Plukn. t. 408. f. 
.3, Avhich comes from China; but, as Ave have already stated, Ave cannot refer here to Plukn. t. 122. f. 4. As 
to Burm. Zeyl. t. 88, the Berchemia Burmanniana of De Candolle, and Rhamnus Vitis-idaa of Burm. El. 
Ind., it has nothing to do Avith this tribe of plants. Brongniart, in his Memoir on the Rhamnece, has 
proposed to make it a new genus, near to Andrachne. Moon, in his Catalogue of Ceylon Plants, refers it 
to Phyllanthus rhamnoides. Dr. Wight and Mr. Arnott (Flora Penins. Indire Orient.) consider it identical 
Avith Plukn. Phyt. 09. f. 3, and both as referable to Phyllanthus multijlorus of Klein’s Herbarium, and 
consequently of WilldenoAv. Perhaps Plukn. t. 122. f. 4, is a bad representation of the same plant. — Messrs. 
Vachell and Millett find this plant about Macao and the adjacent islands. 
Tab. XXXVH. Berchemia lineata. Fig. 1, FloAA'er; Jig. 2, Section of do.; Jig. 3, Petal and stamen. 
The Rhamnus theezans, Linn. (Sageretia, Brongn.) we have received from Mr. Millett; and also the 
Ceanothus Asiuticus. 
Ord. XXVII. HOMALINE.E. Brown, 
1. Blackwellia fagifolia; foliis elliptico-lanceolatis serrulatis supra glaberrimis subtus 
puberulis brevissime petiolatis, racemis simplicibus spiciformibus axillaribus nutantibus 
folium subsequantibus, floribus 6-8-antlris 2-4-gynis, perianthii laciniis 12-16 subbiseri- 
