Species, D. Lessertianum, Benth., B.E1. i, 382 (1863). 
Quite glabrous, or the young shoots and panicles minutely pubescent. 
Leaflets. —4 to 10, usually without any terminal odd one, elliptical or lanceolate, shortly and 
obtusely acuminate, 4 to 5 inches long. 
Panicles. —Loose, extra-axillary, 3 to 4 inches long. 
Calyx. —Short, cupular, entire or irregularly crenulate. 
Petals. —4 or 5, glabrous, more or less adherent to the staminal tube at their base, laiely at 
length free. 
Staminal tube. —Glabrous, 8- or 10-toothed. 
Tubular disc. —Broad, scarcely longer than the ovary. 
Ovary. — Hirsute, 4- or 5-celled, with 1 ovule in each cell. 
Fruit .—Hard, obovoid, about | inch long in the specimens seen. 
Arillus of the seeds thin. 
Bentliam lias a variety pubeicens of D. Lessertianum, but this was later 
described as D. Becklerianum, C.DC., and will be dealt with in due course. 
1). Fra sera mu li. Bentli, and D. Lessertianum, Benth., are identical! 
I think it is best, as a matter of convenience, to separately define the two 
species at this place, just as Bentliam did, and then to explain how the confusion 
has aiisen. 
I have obtained specimens of Bentham’s types of both Leaseranum and 
Lessertianum , and will, in Plate 93, Part XXY of this work, reproduce the original 
drawings of the type of Hartighsea Fraserana, A. de Juss. (D. Fraseramm , Benth.). 
The differences between I). Fraseranum and T>. Lessertianum are, according 
to Bentliam 
“Flowers 4-merous. Ovary-cells 3, 2-ovulate. Leaflets 5 to 9. Panicles small, loose. 
Tubular disc short and broad.” 
— Fraseranum. 
“Flowers 4- or 5-merous. Ovary—cells 4 or 5, 1-ovulate. Leaflets 4 to 6. Panicles loose, 
few-flowered. Staminal tube glabrous,” 
•— Lessertianum. 
These supposed differences all appear to break down when a series of 
specimens is examined. 
Casimir de Candolle in his Meliacece (Prodromus) places D. Fraseranum and 
L>. Lessertianum next to each other in the section :— 
B. Tubus stamineus cum petalis plus minusve coalitus. 
1° Paniculaj cum foliis hornotinse, 
* Flores 5- meri. 
To jfiace all the evidence before my readers, I give M. de Candolle’s 
descriptions of the supposed two species in parallel columns, and it will be seen that 
they really supplement each other in all important points. 
