208 
CHINA. 
[LaurinecB. 
We refer the Chinese plant here although there are some small points of difference, principally on 
account of its entire leaves, and panicled inflorescence of long and almost leafless spikes. The leaves 
(we have only seen the upper ones,) are elliptical, obtuse, and mucronate ; the achenium is even on the sur- 
face, shining, and horizontal, as in the true species of Chenopodium. 
2. Chenopodium Willd.f — C. hybrid um. Lour. FI. Coch. l.jo. 217.^ 
Ord. LXVIII. POLYGONE^. Juss. 
1. Rumex Chinensis. Campd. Rum. p. 75 . — R. denticulatus. Dmi. in Campd. 1. c. p. 
143. — R. Loureiri. Campd. 1. c. p. 142. — R. crispus. Lour. FI. Coch. 1. p. 269. 
We have received this from Mr. Millett. Probably, as Sprengel suggests, it is too closely allied to R. 
persicarioides and R. maritimus. 
1. Polygonum orientale /3. pilosum. Meisn. in Wall. PI. As. Rar. 3. p. 54. — P. pilosum. 
Roxb. FI. Ind. 2. p. 286. — Lagunsea Cochinchensis. Lour. Coch. 1. p. 272. 
2. Polygonum Persicaria. Linn. — Meisn. Polyg. p. 68. Lour. FI. Coch. \. p. 296. 
This we have only received from Lappas Island, both from Mr. Millett and Mr. Vachell, n. 113. 
b. Meisner, in his account of the East Indian Polygonece, in Wallich’s PI. As! Rar., does not enumerate 
this species, although in his original work on the genus, he mentions it as a native of the East and of China. 
P. glabruni appears to occupy its place in India; but, at the same time, the plant before us is certainly not 
P. glabrum, nor is it distinguishable from the European form of the species. 
3. Polygonum barhatum. Linn. — Lour. FI. Coch. 1. p. 296. Roxb.- FI. Ind. 2. p. 289. 
Meisn. Polyg. p. 80. in Wall. PI. As. Rar. 3. p. 56. 
4. Polygonum perfoliatum. Linn. — Lour. FI. Coch. \. p. 298. Roxb. FI. Ind. 2. p. 288, 
Meisn. Polyg. p. 65 ; in Wall. PI. As. Rar. 3. p. 59. 
5. Polygonum Chinense. Linn. — Lour. FI. Coch. 1. p. 297. Roxb. FI. Ind. 2. p. 289. 
Meisn. in Wall. PI. As. Rar. 3. p. 60. 
Our specimen from Mr. Vachell, n. 110, is var. a. of Meisner, or P. polycephalum, Wall. 1. n. 1707. a; 
but one from Mr. Millett belongs to another variety; it is therefore probable that they are not constant. 
Ord. LXIX. LAURINEiE. Juss. 
1. Tetranthera Roxburghii. Nees ab Ese7ib. in Wall. FI. As. Rar. 2. p. 65. — T. apetala, 
Roxb. Cor. 2. t. 147; FI. Lid. 3. p. 819. — Sebifera viscosa. Lour. FI. Coch. 2. p. 783. — 
Tomex sebifera. Willd . — Berrya Chinensis. Klein. 
Professor Nees VonEsenbeck, in the restricted generic character which he proposes, says that the three 
inner stamina alone bear stipitate glands ; we, however, have sometimes found both the inner series furnished 
with them, exhibiting, altogether, twelve glands. Roxburgh, in his FI. Ind. at p. 820, confirms this : 
“ Nectarial glands from six to sixteen, shortly pedicelled, oval, peltate, alternate with the filaments, but three 
times shorter.” 
2. Tetranthera monopetala. Roxb. Cor. 2. t. 148; FI. Ind. 3. p. 821. Nees ab Esenb. in 
Wall. El. As. Rar. 2. p. 66. — Tomex Japonica. Thunb. 
We agree with Roxburgh, that Tomex Japonica is not distinct from this species; and though Nees Von 
Esenbeck keeps them so, he doubts if they ought not to be regarded as mere varieties. 
