210 
CHINA. 
\Euphorbiace(je. 
collection was obtained from Singapore, Silhet, the Calcutta Botanic Garden, and Courtallum ; the first is 
probably identical with Rumphius’ plant, the last with the Ceylon one, and the two others with that culti- 
vated in this country, the seeds of which were forwarded by the late Dr. Carey. 
Ord. LXXII. EUPHORBIACE^. Juss. 
1. Glochidion Siniciim. — Bradleia Sinica. GcBrtn, — Roxh. FI. Ind.'S. p. 700. — Phyllanthus 
villosa. Poir. in Lam. Enc. Meth. 5. p. 297 ? 
We have only received it from Rev. G. H. Vachell, n. 153, collected in Lappas Island. 
2. Glochidion mode ; ramulis compressis, petiolis pedunculisque pubescentibus, foliis 
petiolatis ovalibus basi retusis apice vix acuminatis subtus molliter pubescentibus, adultis 
supra glabris nervis pubescentibus, pedunculis petiolo subdimidio brevioribus multifloris, 
pedicellis masculis pedunculos subsequantibus, foemineis filiformibus 2-3-plo longioribus. — 
Phyllanthus obscurus. Willd. ? 
From Roxburgh’s character, this appears to be closely allied to his Bradleia hirsuta (FI. Ind. 3. p. 699). 
In the few specimens we have seen, and which we owe to Mr. Millett, the ovary and young fruit are con- 
stantly injured by insects ; we refer it, however, without hesitation, to Glochidion, as defined by M. Adrien 
de Jussieu, from the structure of the male flower and of the stigma. W e may remark, that the character given 
by him must be altered, if Bradleia pinnata, Roxb., in which the fruit is said to have 8-10 cells, and B. 
multilocularis, Roxb., or Agyneia multilocularis, Willd., belong to it ; this last has 8-12 anthers. 
]. Phyllanthus Niruri. Linn. (excl. syn. Rheed.) — Roxb. FI. Ind. 3. p. 659 certe (excl. 
syn. Rheed.) Pluk. Phyt. t. \SS. f. 5. Burm. Thes. Zeyl. t. QS. f. 2. Rheed. Hort. Mai. 
10. t. 16 ? (certe non t. 15.) Rumph. Herb. Am. 6. t. Yl.f. 1. 
We can scarcely clear up the synonyms between this and P. urinaria, Linn., nor are we quite certain 
that we are not reversing the appellations given by Linnaeus. What we here call P. Niruri, has smaller 
leaves than P. urinaria, and the capsule is perfectly smooth and even, which, in the other, is covered with 
numerous flattened small scale-like tubercles. To our P. urinaria belong Rumph. Amb. 6. t. 17. f. 2, and 
Rheed. Mai. 10. t. 15, which last represents faithfully our specimens from the Peninsula of India, from Dr. 
Wight: indeed, although this figure has been always quoted for P. Niruri, Rheede says decidedly, that the 
gemma or capsules “ sunt in superficia velut granulata ac in sex cancellos suturis distinctae.” Plukenet’s 
t. 183. f. 6, seems distinct from either, unless it be a narrow-leaved form of Ph. Nirtiri. Linnaeus describes 
P. urinaria as the smaller plant of the two, and as having procumbent stems : we find it as large, and both 
to be erect. If, then, Linnaeus be correct in his reference to Rheede, our P. Niruri must be his P. uri- 
naria, and vice versa. Both P. Niruri and urinaria of Poiret, in Lam. Encycl., appear to belong to our 
P. Niruri. 
2. Phyllanthus lucens. Poir. (1804.) in Lam. Enc. h.p. 296. — P. turbinatus. Sims (1816.) 
in Bot. Mag. t. 1862. (non Koen.) — Nympbanthus rubra. Lour. FI. Coch. 2. p. 665 ? 
Our difficulty about Loureiro arises from his saying, that the male and female flowers spring from the 
same axils, which is not the case in our plant. As the name turbinatus was applied by Sims to this, while 
Koenig and Roxburgh intended by it another species, (that figured by Rheede in his Hort. Mai. 5. t. 43, 
which differs by the shape of the leaves, and several other characters,) we have availed ourselves of the 
older appellation given by Poiret. The Chinese plant, with P. turbinatus. Keen., P. patens, Roxb., P. 
vitis-Idea, Koen., and Roxb. (Rheed. Hort. Mai. 5. t. 44.) form a small groupe, with turbinate male perianths. 
