'September 23,1871.] THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL AND TRANSACTIONS 
247 
Alpinia , and a few Moluccan ones, received from M. 
Teijsmann, of the Buitenzorg Garden; whilst, as re¬ 
gards hooks, I was restricted to Roxburgh’s ‘Flora 
Indiea,’ the writings of Wight and Miqucl, and the very 
useful ‘ Prodromus Monographs Scitaminearum ’ of 
Prof. Horaninow, published at St. Petersburg in 1862. 
With these somewhat slender adminicula , I was soon 
•satisfied that the Galangal was either referable or else 
very closely allied to A. calcar at a, Rose, (which Rox¬ 
burgh states to have been introduced from China into 
the Calcutta garden) ; and though I found some discre¬ 
pancies between the Kwangtung specimens and the 
■description of A. calcarata drawn up from the living 
plant by Roxburgh,* * * § whose accuracy is so well known, 
yet these were apparently so few and unimportant that 
my chief ground of hesitation as to their identity was 
the extreme improbability that the rhizome of a plant 
widely cultivated within the tropics, and growing and 
flowering luxuriantly in the Calcutta, and also, accord¬ 
ing to Thwaites,fi in the Peradenia garden, should have 
remained for so long a period unrecognized if really the 
-same as the Lesser Galangal of commerce. 
It being evident that this question, of so much interest 
in itself, could not be solved with the means at hand, 
-whilst an approximate judgment would be valueless, I 
determined to let the matter lie over imtil I had access 
“to more complete materials. 
Since then I have received, through the kindness of 
Air. Hanbury, a sketch, with a single flower coloured, of 
the plate of A. calcarata , given in Roscoe’s ‘ Scitamincfo,’ 
-and a full-coloured copy of that in the second volume of 
'the ‘ Botanical Register; ’ whilst my ever liberal friend 
Dr. Thwaites has sent me living rhizomes of the same 
species, whence have been reared fine healthy plants, 
though they have not as yet flowered, and, besides, 
-copious specimens both of the flowering plant for the 
herbarium, and of the dried mature rhizomes. Mr. 
'Taintor’s Galangal plants have also again blossomed 
under culture, but set no fruit; X so that fresh flowering 
^specimens of A. calcarata , and fruit of both species being- 
alone wanting, I may claim to have had at my disposal 
as good materials for comparison as ordinarily fall to the 
lot of a descriptive botanist. I have, to the best of my 
•ability, made a careful and exact comparative examina¬ 
tion of living flowerless plants of each kind (including 
the rhizome), and of the mature rhizome of each; whilst 
I have compared the fresh and also the dried flowering 
plant of the Galangal with separate dried flowers, as well 
as herbarium specimens of the entire inflorescence of A. 
■calcarata. The result is, that I am now entirely satisfied 
that the plant which furnishes the Lesser Galangal root 
is, though very closely allied to Alpinia calcarata , Roscoe, 
•a perfectly distinct and well-defined species, the two 
-differing in several particulars of structure, as well as in 
sensible qualities, as the following brief comparative 
notes will show:— 
Alpinia calcarata. Galangal. 
Dried mature rhizomes Dried mature rhizomes 
■chestnut-brown, § conspicu- externally rufous - brown, 
ously furrowed longitudi- only very finely striated 
* ‘ Flora Indiea,’ ed. Carey, vol. i. p. 69. 
+ Enum. PL Zeyl. p. 320. 
J Zingiberaceous plants when under cultivation, even in 
localities where they are native, are far less disposed to fruit 
than the same species in a wild state, the flowers usually 
dropping off as soon as they fade. 
§ Described by Roxburgh as somewhat woolly and pale- 
coloured. Dr. Thwaites and myself find them perfectly 
smooth, both when young and at full growth. The young 
fresh rhizomes of both plants are quite white and succulent; 
but these can scarcely be alluded to: again, some dried rhi- 
xomes kindly supplied from the Calcutta garden are cinna¬ 
mon-coloured ; but these are of small diameter, and evidently 
•immature. The full-grown ones from Ceylon are, as described, 
•of a chestnut hue externally. 
nally; when cut across, 
with a stronger odour than 
Galangal, the cut surface 
remaining of a fuscous hue; 
of a bitter aromatic taste, 
much like cardamoms, with 
a distinct flavour of rhubarb 
superadded, but destitute of 
heat. Sheaths and bases of 
the young living stems or 
shoots more or less tinged 
with pink; tasting some¬ 
what like rhubarb, but with¬ 
out any hot flavour. Leaves 
of a full deep green; aro¬ 
matic, but not hot in taste. 
Ligulm 3-6 lines long, 
rounded or truncate, and 
frequently bifid at apex. 
Racemes compound.* Flow¬ 
ers with an oblong concave 
bractlet at their base.f La- 
bellum “ yellowish, mi¬ 
nutely punctated with dull 
red, and with veins of a 
deep dull red colour ” 
(Thw.),d its veins thickish. 
The fruits of both species, when known, may afford 
other marks of distinction. 
A description of the Lesser Galangal plant, for which 
I propose the name of Alpinia ojficinarum , drawn up 
very carefully from living specimens, may fitly bring 
these notes to a close. 
Alpinia officinakum, n. sp.; rliizomatibus longo 
repentibus atquc intertextis cvlindraceis 6-9 lineas cir- 
citer diametro rufo-brunneis glaberrimis squamis magnis. 
pallidioribus fibrosis demurn secedentibus annulosque 
irregulares sinuosos albidos rclinquentibus copioso in¬ 
structs, caulibus 2£-3|-pedalibus, foliis bifariis longe 
vaginantibus coriaceis glaberrimis nitidis anguste lancco- 
latis basi angustatis sed non petiolatis exquisite attenu¬ 
ate 9-14 poll, longis medio 10-12 lin. latis ligula magna 
(9-15 lin. longa) oblonga scariosa erecta basi decurrente 
vaginas marginante apice acutiuscula auctis, racemo ter- 
minali simplici erecto densifioro brevi (plerumque haud 
4-pollicari) foliis superato, rachi tenuiter tomentella, 
bracteis |[ spathaceis involucrantibus binis exteriore vi- 
ridi nunc folio abbreviate coronata interiore alba amba- 
* So described by Roxburgh, and so I find them in all Dr. 
Thwaites’s specimens; but represented as simple in Wight’s 
plate (Ic. PI. Ind. Or. vi. 2028), and also apparently by 
Roscoe, and in the ‘ Botanical Register.’ 
f Described by Roxburgh as “ solitary, boat-shaped, white, 
1-flowered,” and shown in the Bot. Reg. plate, and also (so 
far as I can make out from the sketch) in that in Roscoe, but 
omitted in Wight’s figure. Quite conspicuous in all Dr. 
Thwaites" £> opooimono 
J Roxburgh describes the labeiium. «/i Aon lv coloured 
with dark purple veins on a yellow ground.” The Rot. -n-cg. 
plate represents it a3 crimson in the centre, with a broad 
yellow border, into which veins from the centre run, though 
not very conspicuously; whilst my copy of Roscoe’s figure 
gives an oblong yellow centre dotted with crimson, and a 
broader margin striated with red and yellow, the latter colour 
slightly predominating. Considering the variation in colour 
of the flowers of Cannot, and the differences ot shade and 
marking in the labella of many cultivated epiphytes of the 
allied Order Orchidacece, it is perhaps unsafe to attach any 
considerable weight to a character of this kind. 
§ Caesalpinus characterizes the rhizome very accurately, 
though briefly, as “ subrufa intus et extra, sapore Piperis, 
modice odorata ” (De Plant, lib. iv. c. 62). 
|| Though these exist equally in A. calcarata, it is curious 
that Roxburgh makes no allusion to them he would hav o 
called the two an involucre. There is likewise no indication 
of them in the figures of the * Botanical Register, Roscoe 
or Wight. 
longitudinally ; when cut 
across, surface becoming 
rufous; aromatic and very 
warm in taste, as if made 
up of ginger and pepper, 
with a recognizable cam- 
phoraceous flavour, leaving 
a powerful sensation of heat 
in the mouth when chewed. § 
Bases of young shoots white; 
tasting very warm. Leaves 
of a rather lighter green; 
hot in taste. Liguke 9-15 
lines long, acutish. Racemes 
quite simple. Flowers with¬ 
out a bractlet. Labellum 
without the slightest trace 
of yellow, its veins very 
fine. 
