19 
1895.] G. King —Materials for a Flora of the Malayan Peninsula. 
For. Flora Burm. I, 213) is probably identical. In Roxburgh’s original 
descriptions of M. superba and M. robusta, he carefully states the differ¬ 
ences on which be depends for tlieir separation. These are as follow: — 
M. robusta. 
Leaves bi-pinnate, 12 to 18 in. 
long. 
Flowers small, white, inodorous. 
Bracts solitary, filiform and often 
very long. 
Sepals ovate-oblong. 
Staminal tube with the segments 
of its mouth minute and filiform. 
M. superba. 
Leaves bi- tri-pinnate, 2 to 4 feet 
long. 
Flowers small, dull white, with an 
offensive smell. 
Bracts small, lanceolate, caducous. 
Sepals ovate-lanceolate, incurved, 
mealy. 
Staminal tube 10-rib bed, hairy in¬ 
side, each of the ten teeth of the 
mouth divided into 3 4 or 5 short 
subulate segments. 
Specimens of both trees were growing in the Calcutta Garden when 
Roxburgh described them, the one having been received from Sunda, 
the other from Malabar. Roxburgh, of whose sagacity and judgment 
one has a thousand examples, considered them as quite distinct, and it 
would take a great deal more evidence than has been produced to make 
me believe that they are conspecific. The Malabar plant (M. robusta') is 
clearly the same as the Ceylon species which has since been identified 
with M. composita, Willd., Sp. Plantar. II 559. I cannot however agree 
to the view, first put forward by Mr. Hiern, that M. composita Willd. 
should be reduced to M. dubia , Cav. Cavanilles describes three species 
of Melia, viz., M. azedarach, azedirachta , and dubia , and he gives figures 
of the first two, but not of M. dubia. He describes flowers of the latter 
as like those of M. Azadirachta in size, the staminal tube as 6-toothed 
with a possibility of more teeth (“ an pluribus ? ”), and the stigma as 
peltate. Now, as a matter of fact, the flowers of M. composita Willd. are 
in size and other respects like those of M. Azidarach, and not like those of 
M. Azadirachta. The mouth of the staminal tube is many-toothed, and 
the stigma is ovoid, 5-toothed, and not peltate. Cavanilles’ description 
points to a plant belonging to some other genus than Melia, whatever 
the “ original specimen” named M. dubia in the Herbarium of the Uni¬ 
versity of Rostock may be ; and it is on that specimen which the reduc¬ 
tion of M. composita to M. dubia is based. (See Hiern in Hook. fil. FI. Br. 
Ind. I, 545.) Ho authentic specimen of M. superba is, so far as I know, 
in existence (the specimens issued by Wallich, under this name, being 
really M. robusta, Roxb.). In my opinion M. superba Roxb., (the Sunda 
i.e., Malayan) species, cannot on account of its staminal tube (densely 
villous internally and with numerous minute teeth at the mouth) be in- 
