174 Dr. Francis Hamitton’s Commentary 
Rumphius considered them as the same, but only alike. In the descriptions of 
the two authors, however, I can perceive no essential difference ; for although 
in the figure of Rheede some of the leaves are represented as ternate, or even 
as binate, yet others are represented as pinnate; and although he says that the 
pinnz are opposite, yet in the figure some are represented as alternate. It 
must be observed, that in order to represent all the parts, Rheede's painter has 
selected the extremity of a branch containing flowers, young fruit, and leaves; 
and in such cases, the extremity of the young flowering branches will be rarely 
found to have perfect leaves, especially where these are pinnated, because in 
this state the leaf has not arrived at full growth, and will be afterwards elon- 
gated by the extremity of the rachis communis pushing out new pinne. Rum- 
phius has unfortunately given no figure} but I am inclined to think that his 
Saponaria is the same species with the Poerinsii, and with the Sapindus trifo- 
liata of Linnzeus and Burman, although it may happen that these great bo- 
tanists had actually specimens of a Sapindus with ternate leaves, and did not 
entirely borrow their ideas from the figure of Rheede. If the latter was the 
case, the name £rifoliata being absurd for a plant having pinnated leaves, 
Willdenow, copying Vahl, has done properly in-calling this species Sapindus 
laurifolius (Sp. Pl. ii. 469.), and in rejecting altogether the S. Saponaria as an 
Indian plant, the plant so called by Burman being identically the same with 
the S. laurifolius. Of this I have given specimens to the library at the India 
House. It must be observed that both Willdenow and M. Poiret (Enc. Méth. 
vi. 664.), copying Vahl probably, agree in quoting the Flora Zeylanica (603.) 
for the Sapindus trifoliata. This erroneous name was reserved for the Species 
Plantarum, and could not be given in the Flora Zeylanica, where no specific 
names are used. The Conghas is mentioned in the place alluded to; and if 
that has really ternate leaves, it is neither the Poerinsii of Rheede nor the 
Saponaria of Rumphius. This can only be determined by inspecting the her- 
barium of Herman; but in the mean time I must observe, that Dr. Roxburgh 
describes the Schleichera trijuga as the Kunghas of the Ceylonese (Hort. Beng. 
29.), and that, therefore, very likely is the 603rd plant of the Flora Zeylanica. 
It must be still further observed, that M. Poiret (Enc. Méth. Suppl. iv. 447.) 
refers the Poerinsii to the Sapindus spinosus of Linnzus, a plant of Jamaica 
distinguished * caule spinosissimo” (Willd. Sp. Pl. ii. 469.). How this great 
