166 Dr. Francis Hamiuton’s Commentary 
Pomum magnitudine fructus Juglandis subrotundum, calyce truncato umbili- 
catum, parietibus crassis intus in putamen tenue induratis biloculare. 
Receptacula e medio septi utrinque enata, membranacea, bifida. Semina 
plura horizontalia, bifariam in singulis pomi loculis nidulantia, pulpo 
carnoso tecta. 
It must be ‘observed, that the Gardenia uliginosa (Hort. Beng. 13.; Hort. 
Kew. i. 370.; Willd. Sp. Pl. i. 1228.) differs in no essential generic character 
from the preceding, and therefore I entirely approve of M. Poiret having called 
it Randia uliginosa (Enc. Méth. Suppl. ii. 829.), under which name I have pre- 
sented specimens to the library at the India House. That the Genipa (Gertn. 
De Sem. t. 190.) is to be considered as a different genus seems very doubtful. 
I did not examine the position of the embryo in the seeds of the Randia uligi- 
nosa, and therefore cannot say whether it is similar to that in the Genipa; but 
Geertner’s figure of the fruit of the latter is, on the whole, a good representa- 
tion of that of the Randia uliginosa; and I must protest against such minute 
differences in structure, as Geertner here relies on, being held as a sufficient 
ground for tearing asunder natural genera, a practice, I am sorry to say, now 
too common maong botanists. 
TsJEROU Eon NanEGAM, seu Tsseru Caru NankJaM, p. 31. tab. 14. 
In the commentary on the Mal Naregam I have noticed the mistakes which 
have arisen from the carelessness of Rheede, or of his editors, in prefixing to 
the figure of that plant the specific names Tsjeru and Catu, which belong to 
this, with only the order reversed. The Brahmans of Malabar, as well as the 
vulgar, class this with the Citrus. With his usual want of care in the ortho- 
graphy of Indian words, Rheede in the plate not only spells the vulgar name 
differently from what he does in the text, but the name said to be given by 
the Brahmans in the plate is Naringi (Orange), while in the text it is Cit 
Rana Nimba (alba, fera Citrus). All these names, however, agree in classing 
it with the Citrus, while even Commeline condemns in some sort this arrange- 
ment, which was however adopted by Ray, who called it Malus Limonia Indica 
fructu pusillo (Hist. Plant. 1658.). Plukenet, who at first followed the same 
idea, and called it Malus Limonia Lentisci foliis Zeylanica, fructu minimo, 
uvarum magnitudine cemulo (Alm. 239.), afterwards (Mant. 125.) became sen- 
