on the Hortus Malabaricus, Part IV. 173 
The elder Burman, on the authority of Commeline’s Flora Malabarica, joins 
the Poerinsii with the Saponaria arbor Zeylanica trifolia, semine Lupini of 
Herman; but if Herman’s specific character is not very bad, they must be 
different, the one having folia ternata, and the other folia pinnata; yet we 
can scarcely suppose Commeline to have been in such an error, and some of 
the leaves in the plate of Rheede no doubt are represented as ternate. If this 
circumstance, which is borrowed from an imperfect specimen, be admitted, 
and if Herman's specific character be amended, the Conghas of the Ceylonese 
may be the Poerinsii; but to this I shall again have occasion to revert. Bur- 
man, although with doubt, quotes also as synonymous the Arbor prunifera, 
spherulas saponarias ferens, tetraphylla, ex India Orientali of Plukenet (Alm. 
47.; Phyt. t. 14. f. 6.), which, as well'as the Poerinsii, has pinnated leaves, but 
so different in form, that I cannot think them the same; and I shall afterwards 
describe a plant, which perhaps is that of Plukenet, and totally different from 
the Poerinsii. In the Flora Zeylanica (603.) the Conghas was left by Linnzeus 
among the Barbare annihilate, which he could not attempt to arrange; nor 
does he quote for it the Poerinsi, deterred, probably, by observing that the 
leaves, when perfect, were really pinnated. When, however, he published the 
Species Plantarum, he joined the Conghas, that is, the Saponaria arbor Indica 
trifolia of Herman, and the Saponaria arbor trifoliata semine Lupini of the 
elder Burman, with the Poerinsii ; and the name Saponaria having been given 
also to an herbaceous plant of the order of Caryophyllec, the Saponaria arbor 
of old botanists was now called Sapindus, and the Poerinsii became Sapindus 
trifoliata foliis ternatis (Burm. Fl. Ind. 91.), although its leaves, when perfect, 
as may be seen in the figure, are pinnated. “ Folia bina et bina sibi invicem 
opposita tenerioribus surculis (petiolis) proveniunt." At the same time, Lin- 
nius and Burman (FV. Ind. 91.) constituted another species of Sapindus called 
Saponaria foliis impari—pinnatis, caule inermi, for which the only authority 
is the Saponaria of Rumphius (Herb. Amb. ii. 134.) ; for the other authorities 
quoted, Browne, Sloane, Commeline, and Plukenet, all refer to an American 
plant, no doubt different from that of India, as any one may see by looking at 
the figure in Plukenet (Phyt. t. 217. f. 7.). Rumphius, in speaking of his 
Saponaria, says, * Similis Saponaria arbor descripta quoque occurrit in Hort. 
Malab. part. 4. fig. 19. nomine Poerinsii.” This does not positively assert that 
242 
