RubiacecB^ 
CHINA. 
191 
oblongis acutis basi obtusis cordatisve adultis supra glabris subtus dense velutino-pubescenti- 
bus, pedunculis apice bibracteatis bifloris axillaribus solitariis petiolo demidio brevioribus, 
terminalibus subcapitatis, calycis villosi dentibus minutis ovatis acutis, corollse tubo elongate 
aequali villoso. — L. Periclyinenum. Lour. Cochin, v. \. p. 185. 
We first became acquainted with this species by specimens sent from the Mauritius by Mr. Telfair to Dr. 
Hooker; but it is only there probably in a state of cultivation. It is closely allied on the one hand to L. 
confusa, De Cand, from which it dilfers by the leaves being- smooth above, and the short peduncles; and 
on the other to L. Leschenaultii, W.alL, which, however, is said to have ovate suheordate ciliated leaves, and 
villous branches. This, with many others in the section “ Nintooa” of De Candolle, might with justice be 
referred to the old L. Japonica, a species which has been perhaps too much dismembered. 
Ord. XLV. RUBIACE^. Juss. 
1. Adina glohiflora ; folds ovato-lanceolatis, pedunculis folio brevioribus. — Sal. Par, 
Lond. t. 115. De Cand. Prodr. v. 4. p. 349. — Nauclea Adina. Sm. Bot. Mag. t. 2613. 
The specimen before us has the leaves considerably broader than is figured in the Bot. Magazine, which 
makes us suspect that A. peduncularis, De Cand., or Nauclea adinoides, Liudl, is a mere variety. 
1. Mussaenda pubescens ; foliis ovato-oblongis acuminatis in nervis pubescentibus, stipulis 
utrinque geminis subulatis, corymbo terminali, lobis calycinis subulatis, uno petiolato ovato 
acuto, coroUse tubo gracili calycem plus duplo superante, lobis acutis. Ait. Hort. Kew. ed 2. 
V. 1. p. 372. Bot. Mag. t. 2099. De Cand. Prodr. v. 4. p. 371. — M. frondosa. Lour. Cochin. 
V. \. p. 188. Rumph. Amb. v. 4. t. 51. 
Notwithstanding such high authorities, we can scarcely consider this as distinct from M. frondosa: indeed 
the principal point of difference appears to be that, in the latter, the leaves and panicle are described as -villous. 
Some Authors add that in M. frondosa the tube of the corolla is scarcely longer than the calycine segments, 
while in M. pubescens it is more than twice as long ; and this may be true if the figure in Burman, Zeyl. 
t. 76, whei-e it is so represented, be considered the type of the species and where the flowers are described 
as red; but then if the BeUlla of Rheede, Hort. Mai. v. 2. t. 18, (not 17, as quoted by Roxburgh, Wallich, 
and De Candolle,) be the same, the calycine segments are remarkably short in comparison with the tube of 
the corolla. The Belilla of Rheede is, however, probably distinct, and the same may be said of M. Suma- 
trana, Roth., although we suspect there is a mistake regarding the red coloured corolla in both the plant of 
Rheede and of Burman. After a careful comparison of Rumphius’ figure, in the Herb. Amb. v. 4. t. 51, and of 
his description of his Folium Principissce angustifolium, we feel inclined to refer it here rather than to M. 
glabra, under which it is quoted hy Vahl and De Candolle. Perhaps also M. frondosa, Roxb. Hort. Bengh. 
and FI. Ind. v. 2. p. 557, as well as of Roxb. et Wall. FI. Ind. v. 2. p. 227, Wall. List of E. I. Plants, n, 6250, 
a-e, and M. Dovinia, Ham. in Linn. Trans, v. 14. p. 203, who refers to the figure in Rumphius, as identical 
with M. pubescens, which, in cultivation in this country, has frequently the whole underside of the leaves 
pubescent. 
1. Gardenia florida; inermis fruticosa erecta, foliis ellipticis utrinque acutis, floribus 
solitariis subterminalibus sessilibus subhypocraterimorphis, calycis laciniis verticalibus 
lanceolato-subulatis tubum corollas aequantibus, baccis elongato-turbinatis costatis. De 
Cand. — Linn. Sp. PI. p. 305. Ker, in Bot. Reg. t. 449. De Cand. Prodr. v. 4. p. 379. — 
Pluku. Amalth. t. 448. f. 4. 
1. Randia Sinensis ; spinis brevibus oppositis subrecurvis, foliis (lanceolatis Lour.) super- 
ioribus ovatis Isevibus glabris, corymbis terminalibus parvis paucifloris, calycis limbo tubuloso 
