Page:Illustrations of Indian Botany, Vol. 1.djvu/252

130

ILLUSTRATIONS OF INDIAN BOTANY. dently forms the type of a new genus, and, so far as. can be made out from male flowers only, clearly referable to- this suborder.

The most striking peculiarity I have observed in this is the aestivation of its calyx, which seems valvate, and not imbricated as in all the other genera of the order, and is the only point that gives rise to the slightest doubt as to the order to which it belongs. But this anomaly may be explained, I think, on the supposition that two of the four sepals, usually present in the order, abort, and that the remaining two, as happens with the exterior sepals of Kayea, have a valvate aestivation. Another circumstance that strikes me as peculiar, is, that the union between the sepals is so very intimate, as not to present any indication of the place where it occurs — hence the corolla and stamens before anthesis have the appearance of being inclosed in a bag, the more so, as the calyx, which is thin and membranacious,is when moistened, as pliable as wet bladder. During anthesis, it splits into two equal halves, displaying 4 petals and numerous stamens, but in the maie flowers, no trace of a pistil — the genus may be thus designated and defined.

Calysaccion, R. W.

Flowers unisexual. Male — Sepals (2 ?) intimately united (forming a closed sac) in aestivation. Petals 4, imbricating. Stamens very numerous, sub-monadelphous at the base, filaments short, slender : anthers oblong, 2-

celled: cells approximated parallel, opening lengthwise, connectivum slightly prolonged and truncated at the apex. Pistil altogether wanting. — Female.

Arborious, young shoots terete or slightly 4-sided, leaves glabrous, opposite, short petioled, linear lan- ceolate, obtuse, thick, hard and coriaceous, marked with a prominent costa, but without transverse parallel veins. Flowers numerous, congested on lateral tubercles, springing from the axils of fallen leaves (abortive branches) forming dense lateral capitulae, peduncles short, l-flowered.

C. longifolium, R. W.

Ma'abar near Bombay.

I am indebted to J. Graham, Esq. of Bombay, for my specimens of this plant, which he thought, might be the Calophyllum longifolium of Wallich's list mentioned above as " certe no/i hujus generis." As this conjecture seems not improbable, I have adopted that specific name. The genus so far as its affinities can be made out from the male flower only, is most nearly allied to Kayea, but wants the inner pair of sepals, and the outer ones are very different in texture, which, added to the difference of the anthers, and habit, throw almost insurmountable difficulties in the way of its being admitted into that family, and fully bear me out in considering it anew and distinct genus.

Hebradendron Cambogioides, (Graham.) Garcinia gutta, (R. W.) page 126.

A. Flowering branch, (female) — B, The same in fruit — natural size.

1. Female flower. — 2. Stigma removed. — 3. Male flower front view. — i. Side view of the same, the petals

removed to show the staminal column. — 5. Back view of the same. — 6. Column of stamens taken from a flow- er-bud. — 7. An anther before dehiscence — all more or less magnified. — 8-9. Full grown fruit cut transversely and vertically — natural size.

Calophyllum Walkerii, (R. W.) natural size. — 2. A and stigma, the ovary cut transversely. — 8. The same

detached flower — natural size. — 3. The same dissected, cut vertically.— 9. A fruit — natural size — all with the

showing each piece. — 4. An anther. — 5. Grains of pol- exceptions mentioned, more or less magnified. len. — 6. A diagram of the aestivation. — 7- Ovary, style,

P. S. — After this article was completed and the greater part of it printed, I received Lindley's " Flora Medica" a new work just issued from the press, and like all the other works of the accomnlished author forming a most valuable contribution to Botanical science; on this occasion in connection with medicine. In this work I find Dr. Lindley has added the weight of his authority, to that of those who adopt Murray's Stalagmitis in preference to Rox- burgh's Xanthochymus. This he does for the reasons adduced by Dr. Graham, namely, that Mr. Brown had examined Murray's specimen and ascertained that it consists of two plants, probably of two genera, one of which, in flower, is a Xanthochymus, the other, not in flower, supposed to be Graham's Hebradendron. Having expressed my belief that Xanthochymus does not belong to this natural order, and having no new species to add, nor other information to communicate res- pecting it, I did not intend to have noticed that genus in this place. But as I have said above that in my opinion Stain gmitis ought to be suppressed and Xanthochymus established in its room, I feel now called upon to state more fully my reasons for thinking so — I shall commence by extract- ing from the " Botanical Magazine Companion" the passage of Mr Brown's letter, quoted by Dr. Graham as his authority, for saying that the generic name Xanthochymus must be drop- ped in favour of Stalagmitis. " The plant sent pasted by Konig to Sir Joseph Banks, as one specimen, I have ascertained to be made up of two plants, and very probably of two genera. The union was concealed by sealing wax. The portion in flower, and which agrees in structure with Murray's account, is, I have no doubt, the Xanthochymus ovali/olius of Roxburgh.