ERRATA AND MEMORANDA. 
Page 77. — Since the text here refeiTed to was published, I have detected, within the 
mesocar^) of a unilocular drupe of Pennantia Cunningliami, two verj- distinct threads or 
tubes, running from its base to its apex, which are evidently the remains of two abortive 
cells, thus proving the truth of the inference stated in the text (p. 75). I have represented 
the fact, as I observed it, in Plate 12. fig. 17, where the dorsal position of the raphe is 
shown, in relation to those abortive cells and to the original axis of the ovary. 
Page 95. — adde, 23. Stemonurns apicalis, nob. Linn. Trans, xxii. 110. Urandi’a api- 
calis, Thw. Hooh. Journ. Bot. vii. 211 ; Enum. PI. Zeyl. 43. — Ceylon. 
Page 98. — in Platea Wightiana, — pro tab. 933, lege 953. 
Mr. Thwaites (Enum. PI. Zeyl. 43) states that at fii-st he had agreed with me, but 
afterwards was convinced I was in error in referring the genus Gomphandra, Wall., to 
Stemonurm, El. : he now considers the former to be identical with Platea, El. The diagnoses 
of those genera, as given by me in pp. 85 and 96, were based on my own observations ; and 
it win be seen how nearly they agree with their characters as published by Elume (Mus. 
Lugd. Eat. i. 249). . The main distinguishing feature between them is the weU-marked 
dissimilarity of their stamens : in Platea the filaments are more compressed and quite 
glabrous ; in Stemonurus they are as long as the petals, often growing longer, very fleshj*, 
and invariably tufted at the apex with numerous long divaricating clavate hairs ; and this 
very conspicuous feature I found constant, both in the male and female plants of every 
species of Gomphandra I was able to examine. I therefore consider I was correct in 
referiing Wallich’s plants of Gomphandra to Stemonurus : the only exception was in the 
instance figured by Dr. Wight (Icon. 953) as a male plant of Gomphandra polgmorpha, 
which on account of its glabrous stamens I referred to Platea, under the name of P. Wight- 
iana, nob., as above mentioned. Having had only a solitary fruit of Stemonu7'us Ga^-dneri 
to examine, it is evident, from the withered growth of the embryo, that I mistook for 
cotyledons the plate of compact tissue which fills the singularly large compressed vacuity 
that nearly separates the albumen into two parts, as it is well described by Mr. Thwaites, 
whose account, derived from the examination of living specimens, must be taken as a more 
accurate description of the albumen and embryo in the seed of Stemonurus. I have repre- 
sented in my drawing, Plate 13 b. figs. 16 to 19, the facts and the state of gi’owth as they 
existed in the solitary instance I was able to examine. The more or less fibrous structure 
of the putamen appears, in Mr. Thwaites’s opinion, the distinguishing feature between the 
latter genus and Platea ; but this character, so likely to vary in different individuals, 
certainly is not so valid a distinction as the remarkable difference in the structure of the 
stamens, above mentioned. 
Page 279. — insert Discaria articidata, with its diagnosis, which by mistake has been 
described in p. 289, under the name of Betamilia articidata. 
Page 284. — after “ Ceanothus infestus, H.B.K.'’ erase “ ii. 31.”, and insert “ vii. 61. tab. 
614; DO. Prodr. ii. 31. CoUetia multiflora, Mog. et Sess. in DC. Prodr. ii. 29.” 
Page 289. — expimge Betamilia articulata, and transfer the entire character to p. 279, 
under the name of Discaria articulata, nob. 
VOL. I. 2 E 
