Kuala Lumpur, 
/ f' ' • < -*r-~ 13th March, 1917. 
Dear Burkill, 
Ridley has been through a good many of my dipterocarp 
specimens here and identifies them as follows:- 
N.S. 5,12,29,34,53. 
N.S. 6,17,18,21,30. 
It.S. 8,10,14,24,59. 
N.S. 31; 38',&4,57. 
N.S. 32,37-,48,52,58 
N.S. 43. 
N.S. 49,62 
N.S. 64,65 
N.S. 7,41,42,47,60 
N.S. 25 
N.S. 26 
N.S. 44,55 
N.S. 68 
N.S. 16,61 
Shores acuminata 
macroptera 
M 
M 
M 
H 
M 
bracteolat 
sericea 
glauca 
leprosula 
Curtisil 
a 
ciliata 
Dipterocarpus crinitus 
D. pterygocalyx 
D. jkunstlari 
D. cornutus 
Hopea intermedia 
Anisoptera costata. 
These were of course named without in most cases other 
specimens to compare with them. I am quite unable to see 
any difference between S. glauca and 3. leprosula, and think 
all are the latter. The fruits don't agree with 3. glauca,a 3 
two of the fruiting calyx lobes are minute in comparison with 
the other three (vide Materials). 
I You have identified N.S, 51 as 3, rigida and N.S.62 as 
J+mjl w **«*t»w S. 6 urtisii. Ridley agrees with the latter, but seems pretty 
positive that the former is not rigida, and suggest$the plant 
v«w may even be a Hopea. 
l+J ' f it (>) • ' 4 l * lUdmL 
4 u7iLn~~^ If you would kindly look into the matter of glauca and 
leprosula, and could also let me know which of your identifi- 
cations agree with Ridley's I can get on with preparing the 
l^ui wood specimens for our museum. 
ft(+~4 - 4 - 
Kind regards to Mrs. Burkill. 
