Vultur fulvus.Briss.I. 462, sp. 7.Gyps vulgaris.Sav. Ois. d’Egypte.Le Percnoptere.Pl. Enl.426.Vautour Griffon.Temm. Manuel d’Orn.p. 5.Alpine Vulture. Var. B.Lath. Gen. Hist.I. p. 17.
This species was observed by Major Denham in the neighbourhood of all the large towns through which he passed. It was attracted by the offal, and refuse of every description, which the inhabitants were accustomed to throw out for its use. For the services which these birds thus performed, they met with protection in return from the natives, who did not permit them to be destroyed.
Species 2.—Astur musicus.
Falco musicus.Daud. Orn.II. 116, sp. lxxxviii.Le Faucon chanteur.Le Vaill. Ois. d’Afr.I. 117, pl. 27.Chanting Falcon.Lath. Gen. Hist.I. p. 178.
This beautiful Hawk was met with occasionally in most parts of central Africa, but not in any abundance. It was the only species of the family which the officers of the expedition were enabled to preserve and bring home.
Species 3.—Eurystomus Madagascariensis.
Coracias Madagascariensis.Gmel.I. 379.Le Rolle de Madagascar.Pl. Enl.501.Madagascar Roller.Lath. Gen. Hist.III. p. 79.
Species 4.—Halcyon erythrogaster.
Alcedo erythrogaster.Temm.Alcedo Senegalensis, var. γ.Lath. Ind. Orn.249.Martin Pecheur du Senegal.Pl. Enl.356, fig. inf.
The birds of this species were met with in abundance in those situations near rivers which form the usual resort of the species of this family. They were more particularly observed in the tamarind trees.
Species 5.—Coracias Senegalensis.
Coracias Senegalensis.Gmel.I. 379.Rollier du Senegal.Pl. Enl.326.Swallow-tailed Indian Roller.Edw.t. 327.Senegal Roller.Lath. Gen. Hist.III. p. 75.
These splendid Rollers were very abundant in the thick underwoods throughout central Africa.
Species 6.—Psittacus erythacus.
Psittacus erythacus.Linn.i. 144.Perroquet cendrée de Guinée.Pl. Enl.311.Ash-coloured Parrot.Alb.i. t. 12.
Several specimens of this species were brought over alive to this country, which are now honoured with a place in His Majesty’s collection.
Species 7—Palæornis torquatus.
Palæornis torquatus.V. in Zool. Journ.vol. II. p. 50.Psittaca torquata.Briss.IV. 323.La perruche à collier.Pl. Enl.551.Perruche à collier rose.Le Vaill. Hist. des Perr.pl. 22, 23.
This species, whose chiefhabitatis said to be in India, which is the main resort of the group to which it belongs, appears to have a very wide geographical distribution. It has been found on the coast of Senegal, as well as by the officers of the present expedition in central Africa. The specimen before us is very much mutilated, but enough of the bird remains to enable us to identify the species.
Species 8.—Pterocles exustus.
Pterocles exustus.Temm. Pl. Col.♂ 354. ♀ 360.
These birds were found in great numbers in the neighbourhood of Bornou. They frequented the low sand hills which were scantily covered with shrubs. Like most of the family, they were found to be excellent eating.
Species 9.—Francolinus Clappertoni.
Franc. supra brunneus fulvo-variegatus; subtus fulvo-albidus, maculis longitudinalibus brunneis aspersus; strigâ superciliari subocularique, gulâ, genisque albis, his brunneo-lineatis.
Pileusbrunneus, ad frontem nigrescens. Striga nigra interrupta extendit a rictu ad genas.Genarumplumæ, anteriores lineis gracilibus, posteriores maculis ovalibus brunneis in medio notatæ.Colli, pectoris, abdominisque plumæ in medio brunneæ marginibus fulvo-albidis, rhachibus pallidis.Dorsisuperioris,scapularium, tectricumque plumæ pallido-fulvo marginatæ partimque fasciatæ.Dorsiinferiorisuropygiique plumæ pallidè brunneæ in medio fusco-brunneo leviter notatæ.Remigesexteriores pogonio externo ad basin fulvo-fasciato, pogonio interno ad basin brunneo, versus apicem rufo-fulvo; interiores utrinque fulvo-fasciatæ.Ptilainferiora in medio brunnea, fulvo ad margines notata.Pteromatainferiora in medio fusca, marginibus fulvis.Femorumplumæ fulvæ in medio brunneæ.Rectricesbrunneæ fasciis plurimis fulvis undulatæ.Rostrumsuperné nigrum, infra ad basin rubro tinctum.Pedes, ad frontem nigri, poné rubescentes:tarsisbicalcaratis, calcare superiore obtuso, inferiore acuto. Longitudocorporis, 14 unc.;alæa carpo ad remigem 5tam, 7⅕;caudæ, 3⅘;rostri, 1¹⁄₂₈;tarsi, 2³⁄₁₀.
This species ofFrancolin, which appears to us to be hitherto undescribed, was met with in tolerable abundance. It frequented sand hills, covered with low shrubs; and was very difficult to be procured in consequence of the great speed with which it ran. We have named the species after Captain Clapperton, R. N. the intrepid and intelligent companion of Major Denham.
Species 10.—Struthio camelus.
Struthio camelus.Linn.I. 265.L’Autruche.Pl. Enl.457. ♀The Black Ostrich.Brown’s Illust. of Zool.pl. 16.
Major Denham succeeded in bringing alive to this country four of these noble birds, which are at present in His Majesty’s menagerie at Windsor.
Species 11.—Otis Denhami.
O. fusco-brunneo et pallido-fulvo undulatim punctulata, capite brunnescenti-nigro, superciliis genis gulâque albidis, collo rufo, pectore cinereo; pteromatibus remigibus rectricibusque nigris, istis albo-maculatis, his albo-fasciatis; corpore subtus rufescenti-albo.
Capitispileus parsque superiornuchæbrunnescenti-nigri.Regionis auricularisplumæ elongatæ, decompositæ, cinerascenti-albæ.Colliinferioris plumæ frontales elongatæ.Dorsi, uropygii, scapularium, ptilorumque plumæ fusco-brunneæ, pallido-fusco undulatim punctulatæ.Pteromatanigra maculis albis grandibus irregulariter notata.Tectricesinferiores albæ ad marginem alarum fusco-variegatæ.Rectricesnigræ; duæ exteriores pogonio interno fasciis duabus albis, externo tribus, notatæ; cæteræ tribus fasciis ejusdem coloris utrinque notatæ, fasciâ sub-apicali nigro sparsâ: duæ mediæ ad apicem fusco-brunneæ, pallido-fusco undulatim punctulatæ.Iridesflavæ.Rostrumcorneum.Pedesnigri. Longitudocorporis, 3 ped. 9 unc.;caudæ, 1 pes, 4 unc.;rostri, ad frontem, 3¾ unc., ad rictum, 4½ unc.;tarsi, 7 unc.;digitimedii, ungue incluso, 2¾ unc.; exterioris, 1⁷⁄₀ unc.
African Bustard?Lath. Gen. Hist.Vol. VIII. p. 361.
We have hitherto seen no description that exactly accords with the bird before us. TheAfrican Bustarddescribed by Dr. Latham, in the second edition of his “Synopsis,” lately published under the title of “A GeneralHistory of Birds,” appears to be the most allied to it. But the head of that bird is described as being bare; and such a marked difference prevents us from referring our bird to that species, with which it generally agrees in other points, without some note of doubt. Our specimen is unfortunately very defective: in the quill feathers, and fore parts of the neck, more particularly. These latter are described by Major Denham as singularly beautiful, being elongated and swelling out into a kind of ruff. We are happy to have the opportunity of distinguishing this bird by the name of the enterprising traveller to whose zeal we are indebted for the species itself, and many other valuable acquisitions to science.
This species was met with, in the rainy season, near the larger towns, but not in any great abundance. It frequented moist places, where the herbage was pure and fresh. In such places it was taken in snares by the natives, who used it for food. It was almost invariably met with singly, Major Denham never having observed a pair together more than once. It is singular, also, that it was always found in company withGazelleswhenever aBustardwas observed, it was certain that theGazelleswere not far distant. Major Denham describes the eye of this bird as large and brilliant. In like manner as is recorded of theGazelle, with which this bird seems to have so close a sympathy, the Arabs are accustomed to compare the eyes of their most beautiful women to those of theOubara[86].
Species 12.Balearica pavonina.
Ardea pavonina.Linn.I. 233.Balearica.Briss.v. 511.Oiseau royal. ♀Id. Ib.pl. 41.L’oiseau royal. ♂Pl. Enl.265.Crowned African Crane.Edw.t. 192.Crowned Heron.Lath. Gen. Hist.IX. p. 26.
These birds were found in the neighbourhood of the smaller lakes. They were generally observed in flocks of six or eight. A single pair was sometimes met with, but a single bird scarcely ever.
Species 13.—Platalea leucorodia.
Platalea leucorodia.Linn.I. 231.La Spatule.Pl. Enl.405.Spatule blanche.Temm. Manuel d’Orn.p. 595.White Spoonbill.Penn. Brit. Zool. App.t. 9.
These birds were found in the smaller lakes, and in grounds which were overflowed. They were met with in tolerable plenty.
Species 14.—Ardea Coromandelensis.
Ardea Coromandelensis. Steph, in Sharts Gen. Zool. XI. p. 577.Ardea russata.Temm. Manuel d’Orn.p. 506.Ardea affinis?Horsf. Linn. Trans.Vol. XIII. p. 189.Ardea comata. var. β.Lath. Ind. Orn.687.Crabier de la côté de Coromandel.Pl. Enl.910.
This bird was shot in the neighbourhood of Alph, a town situated in the middle of a swamp, described at page 233 of these travels. They were seen in some abundance in that neighbourhood, and were noticed by Major Denham as remarkable for their beauty and gracefulness.
Species 15.—Ardea melanocephala.
Ard. cinerea; capite cristato, colli parte posteriore lateribusque, regione interhumerali, remigibus, rectricibusque nigris, gulâ collique parte anteriore albis.
Colliinferioris plumæ elongatæ cinerascentes.Dorsipars anterior inter humeros nigra, posterior saturatè cinerea.Ptilapallidè cinerea.Tectricesinferiores albæ.Rostrumnigrum,mandibulâinferiore flavescente, apicemversus nigro marginatâ.Pedesnigri. Longitudocorporis, 2 ped. 9 unc.;alæ, 15 unc.;rostri, 4;tarsi, 6.
We feel much hesitation in characterizing the bird before us as a distinct species. In a family like the present, where there is so much variation both in age and sex in the same species, it is almost impossible to decide upon the identity or distinction of species, unless by actual observation of the birds themselves in their native haunts, and in their different ages and states of plumage. On the whole, however, it is perhaps the most eligible plan to keep those species separate which show evident marks of distinction; leaving it to more accurate observation to ascertain whether they may be identical with described species, and differing merely by age, sex, or the variations of plumage according to the different seasons of the year.
The bird before us might, at first sight, be supposed to be the commonArdea cinerea, Linn. But that bird, as far as we have observed, never possesses the entirely black head which distinguishes the specimen before us; nor has it the black on the hind part of the neck, nor on the back between the shoulders. The younger bird of our common species has those parts cinereous which are black in the adult: and the crest and lower feathers of the neck are never so much elongated as in the old bird. The strength of the black markings in Major Denham’s species, moreover, and the developement of the crest, neck, and scapular feathers, prevent us from concluding it to be an immature bird. If we allow it to be adult, it is decidedly distinct from the adult ofA. cinerea. We know no other allied species to which we might consider it referable.
These birds were found in great abundance in all the lakes and marshes throughout the route of our travellers. They were met with in company with numberless other species of the family, specimens of which our officers were prevented from preserving, or bringing home, in consequence of the difficulties attending the expedition, to which we have before alluded.
Species 16.—Scopus umbretta.
Scopus umbretta.Gmel.I. 618.L’Ombrette du Senegal.Pl. Enl.796.The Umbre.Brown’s Illust. of Zool.pl. 35.Tufted Umbre.Lath. Gen. Hist.Vol. IX. p. 23.
Major Denham informs us, that this bird was very rarely seen. The few he observed were met with in theMimosatrees.
Species 17—Ibis Æthiopicus.
Tantalus Æthiopicus.Lath. Ind. Orn.706.Ibis religiosa.Cuv. Regne Anim.I. 483.Abou Hannez.Bruce’s Trav. Append.pl. p. 172.
This bird, which is of exceeding interest as being one of the two species ofIbiswhich were the objects of sacred worship among the Egyptians, was met with by Major Denham on the west borders of the Lake Tchad. He observed them in flocks, and in considerable numbers. Hitherto they have been sparingly seen by travellers, and few specimens have reached our collections.
Species 18.—Ciconia Marabou.
Ciconia Argala.Temm. Pl. Col.301.
This bird was met with rather plentifully in the neighbourhood of large towns, in company with theVultures, to the manners of which we have already referred, page 195. Like them, they were protected by the natives, in consideration of the services they performed in clearing away all the offensive substances which were thrown out to them from the towns. In India, we find that the corresponding species,Ardea Argala, Lath., is held in equal estimation for similar services. Major Denham mentions his having frequently been a witness of their voracious and omnivorous habits.
M. Temminck first figured and characterized this African species as distinct from that of India. He has given it the name ofArgala, while for the Indian bird, which had already received that name from Dr. Latham, he proposes the name ofMarabou. We have ventured to reverse the orderof these names; and while we retain for the Indian species the original name conferred on it by Dr. Latham, which, it is to be recollected, is an Indian word, we have assigned the African species the title ofMarabou, which, it is equally to be observed, is a word peculiar to Africa.
The specimen brought home by the present expedition appears to be a young bird, and answers to the description given of the young of this species by M. Temminck. The colours are nearly black in the bird before us, which are grey in the adult bird figured by that gentleman. Major Denham mentions his having noticed some birds nearly allied to this species, which were larger, and different in colour, and which he conceived to be distinct. They probably were the adult birds of this species.
Species 19.—Plectropterus Gambensis.
Plectropterus Gambensis.Steph. in Shaw’s Zool.XII. Part 2. p. 7. pl. 36.Anas Gambensis.Linn.I. 195.Spur-winged Goose.Lath. Gen. Hist.X. 241.
This bird was found in flocks of great numbers on all the lakes. The flesh was very coarse, and of a fishy taste, and afforded very bad eating.
Species 20.—Plectropterus melanonotus.
Plectropterus melanotos.Steph. in Shaw’s Zool.XII. Part 2. p. 8.Anser melanonotus.Forst. Zool. Ind.p. 21. t. 11.Anas melanonotus.Lath. Ind. Orn.839.Oye de la côté de Coromandel.Pl. Enl.937.Black-backed Goose.Penn. Ind. Zool.p. 12. t. 11.
This species, of which fine specimens of the male and female are preserved in the collection, was met with on the lake Tchad. It was not seen in any abundance, and was found in company with other species of the family. The protuberance on the bill of the male is much more enlarged and prominent than is represented in the “Planches Enluminées.”
Species 21.—Anas viduata.
Anas viduata.Linn.I. 205.Canard du Maragnan.Pl. Enl.808.Spanish Duck.Penn. Gen. of Birds, p. 65. t. 13.
This species was very common, both on Lake Tchad and on all the smaller lakes. It was excellent eating. Mr. Pennant has described the species as an inhabitant of America and Africa. Linnæus says only, that it is found in the lakes of Carthagena; those, it is supposed, of New Spain. Our bird accords very accurately with his description of the species, and also with the figure quoted above from the “Planches Enluminées.” We have every reason to conclude with Mr. Pennant, that the species inhabits both the Old and New Continent. The bend of the wing exhibits the rudiments of a spur.
Species 22.—Onocrotalus Brissonii.
Pelicanus Onocrotalus.Linn.I. 215.Le Pelican.Pl. Enl.87.White Pelican.Edw.t. 92.
This well known species has been described to us by Major Denham as very abundant on the borders of Lake Tchad. The genusOnocrotaluswas first instituted by M. Brisson; but, according to his custom, he left the present species without any specific name. M. Cuvier, in his “Regne Animal,” acknowledges the genus; but neither has he specifically distinguished the bird. We feel much pleasure in now assigning it a name, in memory of the first characterizer of the group; an ornithologist, whose works cannot be studied without the highest advantage, but whose labours have never as yet been sufficiently appreciated.
Species 23.—Phalacrocorax pygmæus.
Pelecanus pygmæus.Pall. Reise.II. 712. t. G.Dwarf Shag.Lath. Gen. Hist.X. 431.Cormoran pygmée, jun.Temm. Man. d’Orn.p. 901.
This bird, which agrees very accurately with M. Temminck’s description of the young of hisCormoran pygmée, was met with by Major Denham on one of the smaller lakes in central Africa. He describes the species as very rarely occurring.
Species 24.—Plotus melanogaster.
Plotus melanogaster.Gmel.I. 580.Anhinga melanogaster.Forst. Zool. Ind.p. 22. t. 12.Anhinga de Cayenne.Pl. Enl.959.Black-bellied Anhinga.Penn. Ind. Zool.p. 13. t. 12.Black-bellied Darter.Lath. Gen. Hist.X. 451.
This bird was seen but once or twice during the course of the expedition. It was met with on one of the smaller lakes. It seems to have a very extensive geographical distribution, being found in the New World, in the islands of Java and Ceylon, and now in the interior of Africa.
There are remnants of several other species of birds in the collection, consisting chiefly of bills, legs, and wings. Among them we can trace the apparent remains of theCiconia alba, Briss.;Ardea garzetta, Linn.; different species of the genusLamprotornis, Temm.; with various others, of which we regret that we cannot venture to give any description. The foregoing twenty-four species are all that we can undertake to determine upon with accuracy.
Species 1.—Monitor Niloticus.
Lacerta Nilotica.Linn.I. 360.Varanus Dracæna.Merr. Syst. Amph.p. 59.Tupinambis Niloticus.Daud. Rept.III. 51.Monitor du Nile, ou Ouaran.Cuv. Reg. Anim.II. 25.
Species 2.—Chamæleo vulgaris.
Chamæleo vulgaris.Daud. Rept.IV. 181.Chamæleo carinatus.Merr. Syst. Amph.p. 162.Lacerta chamæleon.Linn.I. 364.
FOOTNOTES:[82]Voyage, ii. 20.[83]Desmarest states, (Ency. Meth. note), that he cannot find any work of Lacépède in which the genus Fennecus is proposed.[84]Perhaps M. Cuvier was led into this mistake by an error of the pen or press, in M. Desmarest’s translation of Bruce’s description of the animal. Bruce says, “from the snout to the anus, he was about ten inches long;” the translation, “Ce Fennec avoit six pouces de longueur, depuis le bout du nez jusqu’ à l’origine de la queue.” The same mistake occurs in M. Geoffroy Saint Hilaire’s quotation of Bruce; but this cannot be a misprint, for the length is not expressed by the wordsix, but by the Arabic cypher6.[85]Taken as the stuffed specimen stands.[86]Oubaraseems to be a general name for theBustardsin Africa. A smaller species than the present, of that country, has received this name as a specific title from M. Gmelin.
FOOTNOTES:
[82]Voyage, ii. 20.
[82]Voyage, ii. 20.
[83]Desmarest states, (Ency. Meth. note), that he cannot find any work of Lacépède in which the genus Fennecus is proposed.
[83]Desmarest states, (Ency. Meth. note), that he cannot find any work of Lacépède in which the genus Fennecus is proposed.
[84]Perhaps M. Cuvier was led into this mistake by an error of the pen or press, in M. Desmarest’s translation of Bruce’s description of the animal. Bruce says, “from the snout to the anus, he was about ten inches long;” the translation, “Ce Fennec avoit six pouces de longueur, depuis le bout du nez jusqu’ à l’origine de la queue.” The same mistake occurs in M. Geoffroy Saint Hilaire’s quotation of Bruce; but this cannot be a misprint, for the length is not expressed by the wordsix, but by the Arabic cypher6.
[84]Perhaps M. Cuvier was led into this mistake by an error of the pen or press, in M. Desmarest’s translation of Bruce’s description of the animal. Bruce says, “from the snout to the anus, he was about ten inches long;” the translation, “Ce Fennec avoit six pouces de longueur, depuis le bout du nez jusqu’ à l’origine de la queue.” The same mistake occurs in M. Geoffroy Saint Hilaire’s quotation of Bruce; but this cannot be a misprint, for the length is not expressed by the wordsix, but by the Arabic cypher6.
[85]Taken as the stuffed specimen stands.
[85]Taken as the stuffed specimen stands.
[86]Oubaraseems to be a general name for theBustardsin Africa. A smaller species than the present, of that country, has received this name as a specific title from M. Gmelin.
[86]Oubaraseems to be a general name for theBustardsin Africa. A smaller species than the present, of that country, has received this name as a specific title from M. Gmelin.
BOTANICAL APPENDIX.
BY ROBERT BROWN, ESQ. F.R.SS. L. & E., F.L.S.
The Herbarium formed during the expedition, chiefly by the late Dr. Oudney, contains specimens, more or less perfect, of about three hundred species. Of these one hundred belong to the vicinity of Tripoli; fifty were collected in the route from Tripoli to Mourzuk, thirty-two in Fezzan, thirty-three on the journey from Mourzuk to Kouka, seventy-seven in Bornou, and sixteen in Haussa or Soudan.
These materials are too inconsiderable to enable us to judge correctly of the vegetable productions of any of the countries visited by the mission, and especially of the more interesting regions, Bornou and Soudan.
For the limited extent of the herbarium, the imperfect state of many of the specimens, and the very scanty information to be found respecting them, either in the herbarium itself, or in the Journal of the collector, it is unfortunately not difficult to account.
Dr. Oudney was sufficiently versed in Botany, to have formed collections much more extensive and instructive, had the advancement of natural history been the principal purpose of his mission. His time and attention, however, were chiefly occupied by the more important objects of the expedition: as a botanist he had no assistant; and the state of his health during his residence in Bornou must, in a great degree, have rendered him unable to collect or observe the natural productions of that country.
For the few specimens belonging to Soudan, we are indebted to Captain Clapperton, who, after the death of Dr. Oudney, endeavoured to preserve the more striking and useful plants which he met with. His collection was originally more considerable; but before it reached England, many of the specimens were entirely destroyed. It still includes several of the medicinal plants of the natives; but these being without either flowers or fruit, cannot be determined.
In the whole herbarium, the number of undescribed species hardly equals twenty; and among these not one new genus is found.
The plants belonging to the vicinity of Tripoli were sent to me by Dr. Oudney, before his departure for Fezzan. This part of the collection, amounting to one hundred species, was merely divided into those of the immediate neighbourhood of Tripoli, and those from the mountains of Tarhona and Imsalata.
It exceeds in extent the herbarium formed by Mr. Ritchie near Tripoli, and on the Gharian hills, which, however, though containing only fifty-nine species, includes twenty-seven not in Dr. Oudney’s herbarium.
The specimens in Mr. Ritchie’s collection are carefully preserved, the particular places of growth in most cases given, and observations added on the structure of a few; sufficient at least to prove, that much information on the vegetation of the countries he visited might have been expected from that ill-fated traveller.
In these two collections united, hardly more than five species are contained not already published in the works that have appeared on the botany of North Africa; particularly in the Flora Atlantica of M. Desfontaines, in the Flore d’Egypte of M. Delile, and in the Floræ Libycæ Specimen of Professor Viviani, formed from the herbarium of the traveller Della Cella.
The plants collected in the Great Desert and its oases, between Tripoli and the northern confines of Bornou, and which somewhat exceed a hundred, are, with about eight or ten exceptions, also to be found in the works now mentioned. And among those of Bornou and Soudan, which fall short of one hundred, very few species occur not already known as natives of other parts of Equinoctial Africa.
A complete catalogue of the herbarium, such as I have now described it, even if the number and condition of the specimens admitted of its being satisfactorily given, would be of but little importance, with reference to the geography of plants. Catalogues of such collections, if drawn up hastily, and from imperfect materials, as must here have been the case, are indeed calculated rather to injure than advance this department of the science, which is still in its infancy, and whose progress entirely depends on the scrupulous accuracy of its statements. To produce confidence in these statements, and in the deductions founded on them, it should in every case distinctly appear, that in establishingthe identity of the species enumerated, due attention has been paid to the original authorities on which they depend, and, wherever it is possible, a comparison actually made with authentic specimens.
In the account which I am now to give of the present collection, I shall confine myself to a slight notice of the remarkable known plants it contains, to characters or short descriptions of the more interesting new species, and to some observations on such of the plants as, though already published, have either been referred to genera to which they appear to me not to belong, or whose characters require essential alteration.
In proceeding on this plan, I shall adopt the order followed in the botanical appendix to Captain Tuckey’s Expedition to the River Congo. And as there will seldom be room for remarks on the geographical distribution of the species I have to notice, I shall chiefly endeavour to make my observations respecting them of some interest to systematic botanists.
Cruciferæ. Fifteen species belonging to this family exist in the collection, one of which only appears to be undescribed, and of this the specimens are so imperfect, that its genus cannot with certainty be determined. Of those already published, however, the generic characters of several require material alterations, some of which suggest observations relative to the structure and arrangement of the natural order.
Savignya Ægyptiaca, (De Cand. Syst.2.p.283,) is the first of these. It was observed near Bonjem, by Dr. Oudney, whose specimens slightly differ from those which I have received from M. Delile, by whom this plant was discovered near the pyramid of Saqqârah, and who has well figured and described it in his Flore d’Egypte, under the name of Lunaria parviflora. By this name it is also published by M. Desvaux. Professor Viviani, in giving an account of his Lunaria libyca, a plant which I shall presently have occasion to notice more particularly, has remarked[87], that Savignya of De Candolle possesses no characters sufficient to distinguish it as a genus from Lunaria; and still more recently, Professor Sprengel has referred our plant to Farsetia[88]. The genus Savignya, however, will no doubt be ultimately established, though not on the grounds on which it was originally constituted; for the umbilical cords certainly adhere to the partition, the silicule, which is never absolutely sessile,is distinctly pedicellated in Dr. Oudney’s specimens, the valves are not flat, and the cotyledons are decidedly conduplicate. In describing the cotyledons of his plant as accumbent, M. De Candolle has probably relied on the external characters of the seed, chiefly on its great compression, its broad margin or wing, and on the whole of the radicle being visible through the integuments. It would appear, therefore, that the true character of the cotyledons of Savignya has been overlooked, chiefly from its existing in the greatest possible degree. To include this degree of folding, in which the margins are closely approximated, and the radicle consequently entirely exposed, a definition of conduplicate cotyledons somewhat different from that proposed in the “Systema Naturale” becomes necessary. I may here also observe, that the terms Pleurorhizæ and Notorhizæ, employed by M. De Candolle, to express the two principal modifications of cotyledons in Cruciferæ, appear to me so far objectionable, as they may seem to imply that in the embryo of this family, the position of the radicle is variable, and that of the cotyledons fixed. It is at least deserving of notice, that the reverse of this is the fact; though it is certainly not necessary to change these terms, which are now generally received.
On the subject of Savignya, two questions naturally present themselves. In the first place: Is this genus, solely on account of its conduplicate cotyledons, to be removed from Alyssineæ, where it has hitherto been placed, to Velleæ, its affinity with which has never been suspected, and to whose genera it bears very little external resemblance? Secondly: In dividing Cruciferæ into natural sections, are we, with M. De Candolle, to expect in each of these subdivisions an absolute uniformity in the state of the cotyledons? As far as relates to the accumbent and flatly incumbent states, at least, I have no hesitation in answering the latter question in the negative; and I believe that in one case, namely Hutchinsia, these modifications are not even of generic importance; for it will hardly be proposed to separate H. alpina from petræa, solely on that ground. I carried this opinion farther than I am at present disposed to do, in the second edition of Mr. Aiton’s Hortus Kewensis, where I united in the genus Cakile plants which I then knew to differ from each other, in having accumbent and conduplicate cotyledons; and I included Capsella bursa pastoris in the genus Thlaspi, although I was aware, both from my own observations, and from Schkuhr’s excellent figure[89], that its cotyledons were incumbent. I am atpresent, however, inclined to adopt the subdivision of both these genera, as proposed by several authors, and received by M. De Candolle; but to this subdivision the author of the Systema Naturale must have been determined on other grounds than those referred to; for in these four genera, in which the three principal modifications of cotyledons occur, he has taken their uniformity for granted.
As to the place of Savignya in the natural family, I believe, on considering the whole of its structure and habit, that it ought to be removed from Alyssineæ to a subdivision of the order that may be calledBrassiceæ, but which is much more extensive than the tribe so named by M. De Candolle; including all the genera at present known with conduplicate cotyledons, as well as some others, in which these parts are differently modified.
There are two points in the structure of Savignya, that deserve particular notice. I have described the æstivation of the calyx as valvular; a mode not before remarked in this family, though existing also in Ricotia. In the latter genus, however, the apices of the sepals are perhaps slightly imbricate, which I cannot perceive them to be in Savignya.
The radicle is described by M. De Candolle as superior, with relation to the cotyledons. I am not sure that this is the best manner of expressing the fact of its being horizontal, or exactly centrifugal, the cotyledons having the same direction. This position of the seed is acquired only after fecundation; for at an earlier period the foramen of the testa, the point infallibly indicating the place of the future radicle, is ascendant. From the horizontal position of the radicle in this and some other genera, especially Farsetia, we may readily pass to its direction in Biscutella, where I have termed it descendant; a character which I introduced to distinguish that genus from Cremolobus. But in Biscutella the embryo, with reference to its usual direction in the family, is not really inverted, the radicle being still placed above the umbilicus. On the contrary, inCremolobeæ, a natural tribe belonging to South America, and consisting of Cremolobus and Menonvillea, though the embryo at first sight seems to agree in direction with the order generally, both radicle and cotyledons being ascendant, it is, in the same sense, not only inverted, but the seed must also be considered as resupinate: for the radicle is seated below the umbilicus, and also occupies the inner side of the seed, or that next the placenta,—peculiarities which, taken together, constitute the character of the tribe here proposed. Itappears to me singular that M. De Candolle, while he describes the embryo of these two genera as having the usual structure of the order, should consider that of Iberis, in which I can find no peculiarity, as deviating from that structure[90].
Lunaria libycaof Viviani[91]is the second plant of Cruciferæ, on which I have some observations to offer. This species was described and figured, by the author here quoted, in 1824, from specimens collected in 1817 by Della Cella. The specimens in the herbarium were found near Tripoli, where the plant had also been observed in 1819 by Mr. Ritchie, who referred it to Lunaria, and remarked that the calyx was persistent. Professor Sprengel, in his Systema Vegetabilium, considers it a species of Farsetia.
That this plant ought not to be associated either with the original species of Lunaria, or with Savignya, as now constituted, is sufficiently evident. And if it is to be included in Farsetia, it can only be on the grounds of its having a sessile silicule, with compressed valves, an indefinite number of seeds in each cell, and accumbent cotyledons. But in these respects it accords equally with Meniocus, a genus proposed by M. Desvaux, and with some hesitation received by M. De Candolle, and with Schivereckia of Andrzejowski, which he has also adopted. It does not, however, agree with either of those genera in habit, and it is easily distinguished from both by its simple filaments and othercharacters, which I shall notice hereafter. Is this plant, then, sui generis? ought it to be united with Alyssum, the character of that genus being modified to receive it? or does not Alyssum require subdivision, and may not our plant be referred to one of the genera so formed? A brief result of the examination of these questions, so far as they are connected with the subject under consideration, will be found annexed to the character which is given of the genus formed by the union of Lunaria libyca with Alyssum maritimum, a plant also in the collection, from the neighbourhood of Tripoli.
Alyssum maritimum, which is described both as an Alyssum and as a Clypeola by Linnæus, is theKonigof Adanson, who founded his generic distinction on the monospermous cells and supposed want of glands of the receptacle; and M. Desvaux, admitting Adanson’s genus, has named it Lobularia. In the second edition of Hortus Kewensis I included this plant in Alyssum, which M. De Candolle has also done in his great work.
For the genus here proposed I shall adopt Adanson’s name, altering only the termination, and wishing it to be considered as commemorating the important services rendered to botany by my friend Mr. Konig, of the British Museum[92].In comparing these two species of Koniga, their agreement is very striking in habit, in leaves, in the closely pressed bipartite pubescence, in the calyx, petals, stamina, and stigma. They correspond also in some other points, less obvious but equally important, which I shall separately notice. The first of these is in having eight glands on the receptacle; a character peculiar, I believe, to these plants, and which first suggested the generic name Octadenia. The glands in Alyssum maritimum were entirely overlooked by Adanson, are not noticed by M. Desvaux, and M. De Candolle has described only the four that subtend the longer stamina. These certainly are much more conspicuous than the remaining four, which, however, occupy the place of the only glands existing in several of the most nearly related genera.
The number and position of the glands in this genus give some support, perhaps, to the hypothesis which I have formerly advanced, of the divisions of an hypogynous disk being in most cases formed of abortive filaments; an opinion more strikingly confirmed, however, in this family of plants, by their form and texture in Alyssum calycinum, and minimum.
The second point in which the two species of Koniga agree is in the structure of the septum. On this, which I consider as a new source of character in Cruciferæ, I shall offer some remarks in speaking of Farsetia.
The third point of agreement is the adhesion of the funiculi umbilicales to the septum. This adhesion, though really existing, is not very obvious in the monospermous cells of Koniga maritima; but in the supposed variety of this species from Teneriffe, in which the cells are occasionally dispermous, it is manifest, and is very remarkable in all states of Koniga libyca.
I first introduced this adhesion of the funiculi to the septum, as a generic character, in distinguishing Petrocallis from Draba. It has since been advantageously employed in the character of Lunaria by M. de Candolle, who, however, supposes this structure of much rarer occurrence in Cruciferæ than it reallyis. According to my observations, it is neither unfrequent, nor always of generic importance. Thus, I find it to exist in some species only of Arabis, namely A. Turrita, pendula, and canadensis, and hence I did not introduce it into my generic character of Parrya, though I have noticed it in my description of the species.
The principal difference existing between these two species of Koniga is that the cells of the ovarium and silicula ofK. maritimaare monospermous, while those oflibycaare polyspermous, the number being variable, apparently indefinite, but not exceeding six. There are, however, other instances in this family, in which the mere difference between definite and indefinite number of seeds is of specific importance only, as in Draba and Meniocus, in each of which a species exists with dispermous cells; and the objection arising from the apparently still greater difference between unity and indefinite number in the two species of Koniga is removed by a supposed third species or variety of K. maritima, in which two seeds are occasionally produced in each cell. It may even be observed, that from unity to the indefinite number in this case, where the ovula in the different cells are alternate, the transition is perhaps more easy than from the binary to the indefinite, in cases where, as in Alyssum properly so called, the ovula are placed opposite in the different cells, and are in the same cell equidistant from its apex; this symmetry, probably, admitting of addition only by fours.
The next genus of Cruciferæ to be noticed isFarsetia, a fragment of the original species of which is in the collection. There are also several specimens of a plant, found in the desert, supposed to be new, and which, though without flowers, and considerably different in the form of its stigma, I am inclined, from the resemblance in habit, in pubescence, in silicula, in seeds, and especially from the exact similarity in the structure of the septum, to refer to the same genus[93].
As the introduction of the structure of the dissepiment into the generic characters of Cruciferæ is now proposed for the first time, and as I believe that its texture and appearance should always be attended to in constituting genera in this family of plants, I shall here offer a few remarks respecting it.
According to the particular view which I briefly but distinctly published in 1818, and which M. de Candolle first adopted in 1821, of the composition of the pistillum in Cruciferæ[94], the dissepiment in this family is necessarilyformed of two lamellæ, derived from the parietes of the fruit. These lamellæ are in many cases easily separable, and where their union is more intimate, their existence is still evident from the want of correspondence, and consequent decussation, of their areolæ. The lamellæ, which are usually very thin and transparent, have their surface divided into areolæ, in different genera of very different forms, some of which may, with sufficient clearness, be described. In many cases no other appearance exists; in some, however, the axis of the septum resembles either a single nerve, or two distinct parallel nerves; and from this axis, whether formed of one or two nerves, tubes having the appearance and ramification of the veins of a leaf, and which generally terminate within the margin, not unfrequently proceed. This is remarkably the case in Farsetia, as I here propose to limit that genus; the central vessels in both its species being closely approximated, so as to form a single cord, extending from the apex to the base of the septum, and the veins being numerous and uncommonly distinct. Approaches more or less manifest to this structure of Farsetia exist in several other genera, as in Parrya, Savignya, and Koniga. Butin this last mentioned genus the nerve, which originates, as in all cases, at the apex, hardly extends, even in the polyspermous species, beyond the middle of the septum, and the veins, which are much less distinct, are descendent.
As far as my observations on this subject at present extend, I expect, with great confidence, uniformity in the structure of the septum of strictly natural genera, and in many cases, though certainly not in all, I have found a resemblance in this respect in more extensive groups. Thus Draba, Arabis, and Aubrietia, agree in having amorphous areolæ, bounded by flexuose tubes or lines; while Alyssum, Berteroa, and Fibigia, have narrow linear areolæ, bounded by parallel or slightly arched lines. Capsella bursa differs from Thlaspi and Æthionema, as Draba from Alyssum, and agrees with Lepidium procumbens,Linn.improperly referred to Hutchinsia, and which equally has incumbent cotyledons. Cochlearia differs in like manner from Kernera. And numerous other examples of the same agreement in nearly related plants, and of differences where the usual sources of distinction are less available, might be noticed.
Hesperis nitensof Viviani is sparingly in the herbarium, both in flower and fruit. The seeds, though not ripe, are sufficiently advanced to show that the direction of the cotyledons is in this stage accumbent; and, as I have found in Cruciferæ generally that the ultimate agrees with the early state of cotyledons, I conclude they are likewise accumbent in the ripe seed. The plant is also abundantly different from Hesperis in other respects, and does not appear to be referrible to any genus yet published. This new genus[95]I have dedicated to the memory of Dr. Oudney, who found the present species in many of the wadeys between Tripoli and Mourzuk, and remarks that camels and mules eat it.
Hesperis ramosissima, which is also in the herbarium, was found in Fezzan. This plant differs in aspect from most of the other species of Hesperis, approaching in some points to Malcomia, in others to Mathiola; and as its cotyledons are very obliquely incumbent, it may form a section or subgenus, with a name, Hesperis (Plagiloba) ramosissima, indicating that character.
Capparideæ, of which eight species occur in the collection, is the family next to be noticed. I consider this order as belonging to the same natural class with Cruciferæ; and that this class includes also Resedaceæ, Papaveraceæ, and Fumariaceæ.
M. de Candolle, in defining Capparideæ, appears to regard the ovarium as having in all cases only two placentæ, and therefore formed of two pistilla or carpella. But to this, which is certainly the more usual number, there are many exceptions. These exceptions occur chiefly in the genus Capparis, which, as it is at present constituted, includes species differing from each other in having an ovarium with from two to eight placentæ, and, consequently, composed of an equal number of pistilla. Capparis spinosa is the most decided instance of the increased number of placentæ, and this, as well as some other nearly related species, are also remarkable in having septa subdividing the placentæ, and uniting in the centre of the compound ovarium.
In the herbarium there are three species of the genus Cleome. Two of these, C. pentaphylla and arabica, are in many respects well known plants; the third I believe to be an undescribed species, but nearly related to monophylla.
If the very natural group, formed by the Linnæan genus Cleome, is not to be preserved entire, its subdivision must be carried much farther, and established on other grounds, than has been done by M. de Candolle, whose genera and sections appear to me to have been equally founded on partial considerations. Thus, hisPolanisia, uniting all the Cleomes whose stamina exceed six, contains in its first section, in addition to the species from which the genus was formed, at least two sets of plants, having very little affinity either with each other, or with the original species, whose only congener is placed in a second section.
Gynandropsisalso consists of two groups not very intimately connected: the first is composed of species belonging to South America, and having the usual æstivation of the family: the second, of whichC. pentaphyllamay be taken as the type, is chiefly African, and is readily distinguished by its very different æstivation,—the great peculiarity of which consists in the petals not coveringthe stamina at any period. To this mode of æstivation of petals, which has never before been noticed, though it equally exists in Crateva and in Resedaceæ, I shall apply the termaperta. It is constantly conjoined, and, perhaps, necessarily connected with the early opening of the calyx, whose segments are originally connivent and slightly imbricate: for it may here be remarked, that in all the modifications of what I have termed imbricate æstivation of petals, they are, I believe, in the very early stage in like manner erect, and the sexual organs equally exposed.
If the expediency of preserving the genus Cleome entire were admitted, a question which I do not pretend at present to decide, it would still be of the greatest importance to arrange its numerous species according to their affinities, and carefully to distinguish the subordinate groups that compose it. To such inferior groups, whether termed subgenera or sections, names, in fact, have been of late years very generally assigned, both by zoologists and botanists.
It has not yet been proposed, however, that these subgeneric names should form an essential part of the name of the species; although, by employing them in this manner, while the principal groups would be kept in view, their subdivision would be carried to the same extent, and the subordinate groups as well expressed as if they had been actually separated into distinct genera.
The adoption of this method, which would not materially disturb names already existing, would probably lead to a greater consistency in the formation of genera, with reference to the natural orders of which they are subdivisions. In this way also the co-operation of two classes of naturalists, at present opposed to each other on the question of the construction of genera, might to a certain extent be expected, and greater uniformity in nomenclature consequently secured.
These advantages appear to me so important, that some expedient for obtaining them will, I am persuaded, at no distant period, be generally adopted.
In favour of the present plan it may be remarked, that it is analogous to the method followed by the Romans in the construction of the names of persons, by which not only the original family, but the particular branch of that family to which the individual belonged was expressed. Thus the generic name corresponds with the nomen (Cornelius), the name of the section with the cognomen (Scipio), and that of the species with the prænomen (Publius).
Without attempting at present to obviate the objections to which the proposed innovation is no doubt liable, I shall proceed to apply it to Cleomepentaphylla. According to my view the genus Cleome would include Gynandropsis, a name which, as that of a section, may be continued to those species of M. de Candolle’s genus belonging to equinoctial America, and having the common æstivation of the family: whileGymnogonia, derived from its remarkable æstivation, may be employed for the section that includes C. pentaphylla, of which the name might be given in the following manner:—
Cleome (Gymnogonia) pentaphylla. This plant, the earliest known species of Cleome, and that on which the genus was chiefly constituted, was found in Bornou. The species is regarded by M. de Candolle as a native of the West India islands, and he doubts whether it may not also belong to Egypt and India. On the other hand I consider it a native of Africa and India, and am not satisfied with the evidence of its being also indigenous to the American islands, where, though now very common, it has probably been introduced by the negroes, who use it both as a potherb and in medicine. It is not unlikely that M. de Candolle, in forming his opinion of the original country of this plant, has been in part determined by finding several species of his Gynandropsis decidedly and exclusively natives of the new continent. But if I am correct in separating these species from the section to which Cleome (Gymnogonia) pentaphylla belongs, this argument, which I have formerly applied to analogous cases[96], would be clearly in favour of the opinion I have here advanced; those species of the section with which I am acquainted being undoubtedly natives of Africa or of India.
Cleome (Siliquaria) Arabica, (Linn. sp. pl. ed.2.p.939.De. Cand. prodr.1.p.240), a supposed variety of which was found both in the neighbourhood of Tripoli and in Soudan, belongs to another subdivision of the genus, equally natural, and readily distinguishable. The species of this subdivision are included in M. De Candolle’s second section of Cleome, but are there associated with many other plants, to which they have very little affinity.
All the species ofCleome Siliquariaare indigenous to North Africa and Middle Asia, exceptviolacea, which is a native of Portugal.Cleome deflexaof M. De Candolle (prodr.1.p.240.), founded on specimens in Mr. Lambert’s herbarium, which were sent by Don Joseph Pavon as belonging to Peru, seems to present a remarkable exception to this geographical distribution of the section. But on examining these specimens I find them absolutely identicalwith some states ofviolacea. I think it probable, therefore, either that they are erroneously stated to have come from Peru, or that this species may have been there introduced from European seeds.
Cadaba farinosa(Forsk. Arab. p.68.De Cand. prodr.1.p.244) is in the herbarium from Bornou. The specimen is pentandrous, and in other respects agrees with all those which I have seen from Senegal, and with Strœmia farinosa of my catalogue of Abyssinian plants, collected by Mr. Salt, and published in his travels. M. De Candolle, who had an opportunity of examining this Abyssinian plant, refers it to hisC. dubia, a species established on specimens found in Senegal, and said to differ fromfarinosa, slightly in the form of the leaves, and in being tetrandrous. Of the plant from Abyssinia I have seen only two expanded flowers, one of which is decidedly pentandrous, the other apparently tetrandrous. Mr. Salt, however, from an examination of recent specimens, states it to be pentandrous. It is probably, therefore, not different from C. farinosa of Forskal, whose specimens M. De Candolle has not seen. And as the form of leaves is variable in the specimens from Senegal, and not elliptical, but between oval and oblong, in those of Abyssinia, C. dubia is probably identical with, or a variety merely of farinosa, as M. De Candolle himself seems to suspect.
Crateva Adansonii(De Cand. prodr.1.p.243) is in the collection from Bornou. This species is established by M. De Candolle upon a specimen in M. de Jussieu’s herbarium, found in Senegal by Adanson, and is supposed to differ from all the other species in having its foliola equal at the base. I have examined the specimen in M. de Jussieu’s herbarium, in which, however, the leaves not being fully developed, I was unable to satisfy myself respecting their form. But in a specimen, also from Senegal, which I received from M. Desfontaines, the lateral foliola, though having manifestly unequal sides, are but slightly unequal at the base, and the inequality consists in a somewhat greater decurrence of the lamina on the anterior or inner margin of the footstalk. As well as can be determined, in very young leaves, this is also the case in the specimen from Bornou; and it is manifestly so in my specimen ofC. læta, which appears to belong to the same species.
Crateva lætawas founded by M. De Candolle on a plant from Senegal, communicated by M. Gay, from whom I also received a specimen in 1824, with the remark, that it was not different from C. Adansonii. In thatspecimen the flowers are male with an imperfect pistillum; in the plant from Bornou they are hermaphrodite, with elongated filaments; and in the specimen received from M. Desfontaines they are also hermaphrodite, but the stamina, though apparently perfect, are fewer in number and shorter than the stipes of the ovarium. I have observed, however, the flowers to be in like manner polygamous in some other species of Crateva, belonging both to India and America, a fact which materially lessens the dependence to be placed on characters taken from the number and length of the stamina in this genus.
Crateva Adansonii, it would appear, then, is the only known species of the African continent, for C. fragrans does not belong to the genus. And it will be difficult to distinguish this African Crateva from a plant which seems to be the most general species of India; except that in the latter, as in all the other species of the genus, the inequality of the lateral foliola, which is also more marked, consists in the greater decurrence of the lamina being on the outer or posterior margin of the footstalk. This Indian species, which may be namedC. Roxburghii, is the Capparis trifoliata of Dr. Roxburgh’s manuscripts, but not Niirvala of Hortus Malabaricus (vol.3.p.49.t.42), as he considers it. I have little doubt of its being also the plant described as C. Tapia, by Vahl, (symb.3.p.61.) his specific character well according with it, and not applying, as far as relates to the petals, to any known species of America. But as this character is adopted by Sir James Smith (in Rees’s Cyclop.), it may likewise be C. Tapia of the Linnæan herbarium; a conjecture the more probable as Linnæus has distinguished his Tapia by its ovate petals from gynandra, in which they are said to be lanceolate (Sp. pl. ed.2.p.637). This celebrated herbarium, however, is here of no authority, for Linnæus was never in possession of sufficient materials to enable him to understand either the structure and limits of the genus Crateva, or the distinctions of its species; and the specific name in question, under which he originally included all the species of the genus, ought surely to be applied to an American plant, at least, and if possible to that of Piso, with whom it originated. It is hardly to be supposed that the plant intended by Piso can now with certainty be determined; the only species from Brazil, however, with which I am acquainted, well accords with his figure and short description. This Brazilian species is readily distinguishable both from C. Adansonii and Roxburghii, by the form of its petals, which, as in all the other American species, are narrow-oblongor lanceolate; and from C. gynandra by the shortness of its stipes genitalium, or torus.
Crateva Tapia so constituted, is, on the authority of a fragment communicated by Professor Schrader, theCleome arboreaof that author, (in Gœtt. Anzeig.1821,p.707.De Cand. Prodr.1.p.242.); nor is there any thing in the character ofC. acuminataof De Candolle (Prodr.1.p.243) which does not well apply to our plant.
C. Tapia, as given by M. De Candolle (op. cit.), is characterized chiefly on the authority of Plumier’s figure, in the accuracy of which, either as to the number or length of stamina, it is difficult to believe, especially when we find it also representing the petals inserted by pairs on the two upper sinuses of the calyx.
The genus Crateva agrees, as I have already stated, in the remarkable æstivation of its flower with Cleome Gymnogonia, by which character, along with that of its fruit, it is readily distinguished from every other genus of the order. Although this character of its æstivation has never before been remarked, yet all the species, referred to Crateva by M. De Candolle, really belong to it, exceptC. fragrans, which, with some other plants from the same continent, forms a very distinct genus, that I shall nameRitchiea, in memory of the African traveller, whose botanical merits have been already noticed.
Capparis sodadanob.Sodada decidua,Forsk. Arab. p.81.Delile, Flore d’Egypte, p.74.tab.26.De Cand. Prodr.1.p.245.
The specimen in the herbarium is marked by Dr. Oudney as belonging to a tree common on the boundaries of Bornou. It is probably theSuag, mentioned in his journal, observed first at Aghedem, and said to be “a tetrandrous plant having a small drupa, which is in great request in Bornou and Soudan, for removing sterility in females: it is sweetish and hot to the taste, approaching to Sisymbrium Nasturtium;” and that “in passing the plant a heavy narcotic smell is always perceived.”
I have here united Sodada with Capparis, not being able to find differences sufficient to authorise its separation even from the first section of that genus, as given by De Candolle.
Forskal describes his plant as octandrous, and M. De Candolle has adopted this number in his generic character. M. Delile (op. cit.), however, admits that the stamina vary from eight to fifteen; and, in the specimen which Ireceived from M. Jomard, I have found from fourteen to sixteen. But were the number of stamina even constantly eight, this alone would not justify its separation from Capparis, several octandrous species of which, belonging to the same section, are already known.
Another species of Capparis, also from Bornou, exists in the herbarium. It appears to be undescribed, and to belong to M. De Candolle’s first section of the genus; but the specimen is too imperfect to be satisfactorily determined.
Both these species have aculei stipulares, and it may here be remarked that all the plants belonging either to Capparis, or to any of the genera of the order whose fruit is a berry, in which these aculei are found, are indigenous either to Asia, Africa, or Europe; while all the aculeated Cleomes, with the exception of perhaps a single African species, are natives of equinoxial America.