[582] In 1865, 10 packages of this drug containing about 15 cwt. were consigned to me for sale in London by a friend in China, who had purchased the drug under the notion that it was true myrrh. The commodity was bad of its kind, and was sold with difficulty at 30s. per cwt.—D. H.
[583] Guillain, Documents sur l’histoire, la géogr. et le commerce de l’Afrique orientale iii. (1856) 350.
[584] In Ramusio (see Appendix, R) 239.
[585] Journ. of the R. Geogr. Soc. 22 (1872) 64.
[586] Flora de Filipians, segunda impression, Manila, 1845. 256.
[587] On consulting Mr. A. W. Bennett, who is now studying the Burseraceæ of India, as to the probable affinities of Blanco’s plant, we received from him the following remarks: “I have little hesitation in pronouncing that from the description, Icica Abilo cannot be a Canarium, but what it is, is more difficult to say. The leaves having the lowest pair of leaflets smallest, seems at first sight very characteristic of Canarium; but the following considerations tend the other way. 1. The opposite leaves which occur nowhere in Burseraceæ except in Amyris, with which the plant does not agree in many ways. 2. The stipellæ which are not found anywhere in the order.—3. The quinate flowers. In all species of Canarium the parts of the flowers are in threes, including C. commune, which according to Miquel extends to the Philippines. The only exception is C. (Scutinanthe Thwaites) brunneum, with which it does not agree in, other respects.
“The foregoing reasons almost equally exclude Icica (Bursera); yet the fruit of Blanco’s plant seems so eminently that of a Burseracea, that I think it must belong to that order, but with some error in the description of the leaves.”
[588] Hist. Plant, lib. iv. c. 7.
[589] Lib. xii c. 38.
[590] Lib. i. c. 141.