PALMED. 
33i 
260. Cartota sobolifera Wall. 
In all the islands, very common in beach-forests. 
Indo-China, Andamans, Malaya. 
261. CORYPHAELATA Roxb., Elor. Ind. 2, 176; Griff., Ind. Palm. 112, 
t. 220 D.—0. Gehanga Knrz, Jonr. As. Soc. Beng. 43, pt. 2, 206, nec 
Blume.—(7. macropoda Knrz, 1. c. 205, t. 15. 
Great Coco, rare; Little Coco, very common. 
This palm, which is very common in Little Coco and particularly so 
near the lake at the south-west corner of the island has leaf stalks 
up to 25 feet long and leaves up to 20 feet across and is clearly identical 
with Kurz’s 0. macropoda. But Kurz’s plant does not appear to be 
specifically distinct from 0. elata. Kurz has himself in his subsequent 
writings noted that his first impression that this is a stemless palm 
was erroneous, admitting that it has a stem at least 8—12 feet high. 
Moreover in Little Coco at least one example had reached a height of 60 
feet and was not yet in flower in 1890, while in 1889 and 1890 Dr. 
King and myself obtained both flowering and fruiting specimens of 
Kurz’s Andamanese Corypha near Port Blair; these prove the species 
to be Corypha elata. Kurz is, I believe, in error in identifying Rox¬ 
burgh’s G. elata with Blume’s G. Oebanga, the two trees—as grown in 
Hort. Calcutta—are very different in appearance; the leaves of G. 
Oebanga are much paler in colour and Blume’s figure of the in¬ 
florescence of G. Gebanga (Rumphia 2, tt. 97, 98 and 105) shows an 
open panicle that will not at all suit G. elata, which has a very dense in¬ 
florescence like a gigantic head of parsley. In any case Roxburgh’s 
name (1832) has four years’ priority and Kurz’s reduction is, therefore, 
on that ground alone, untenable. The writer is of opinion, and Dr. King 
agrees, that the examples of G. elata in Hort. Calcutta may have been 
originally introduced from the Andamans and that the species is only 
there indigenous. At all events it has not hitherto been found wild in 
any part of India or Burma. 
262. LmsTONA sp. 
Great Coco; occasional on inland ridges. This palm, the 3 or 4 
examples of which met with were stemless or had stems under two feet 
high, seems to be nearly related to L. Jenkinsiana Griff., Palm. Brit. 
Ind. 128, t. 226 A. B. and to L. speciosa Kurz, Jour. As. Soc. Beng., 
43, 2, 204, t. 13, 14, the differences between which species Mr. Kurz him¬ 
self admits are not great. The Coco species may not of course be a dwarf 
one, but if it is not it seems remarkable that no tall examples were met 
with. The leaves are remarkably like those of L. speciosa and Mr. 
141 
