224 Dr. Francis Hamiuron’s Commentary 
own work, much less in any other. I must, however, confess that M. La- 
marck’s figure of the Guettarda speciosa (Ill. Gen. t. 154. f. 3.) seems to me to 
differ materially from the Rava Pou both in the form of the leaf and inflo- 
rescence; nor is the Rava Pou quoted either in the Hortus Kewensis (v. 279.) 
or Hortus Bengalensis (86.) for the Guettarda speciosa, although it is usually 
referred to by the authors, where they do not know some evident objection. 
Still, I think, there can be no doubt of the Rava Pou being a Guettarda, and 
totally different from the Jasminum hirsutum, as established by our worthy 
President (vide Enc. Méth. Suppl. iii. 713.) ; but it may probably be a species 
of Guettarda not yet introduced into the modern system of botany, nor have I 
seen the plant. 
ANAVINGA, p. 101. tab. 49. 
Commeline does not venture to propose any arrangement for this plant. 
Plukenet retains the Indian name; and Ray might as well have done so, for 
by calling it a Baccifera Indica he adds nothing to our knowledge. The elder 
Burman made some advance in comparing it, although with doubt, to his 
* Grossularia spinis vidua, baccis in racemo congestis, spadiceis, foliis crenatis, 
ovato-acuminatis" (Thes. Zeyl. 111. t. 48.), which has, no doubt, a considerable 
resemblance; but as he ascribes to his plant many stamina, while Rheede de- 
fines their number to be six in each flower, we may consider them as certainly 
distinct. Still further, if Burman attended to the situation of the germen in 
comparing his plant to the Grossularia, it must belong even to a different order 
from the Anavinga, the calyx of which is evidently below the fruit. That 
Burman, however, paid any attention to this circumstance is doubtful; and I 
am inclined to think that his Grossu/aria is, in fact, nearly allied to the Æna- 
vinga, although certainly a different species. The Ceylonese name of Burman's 
Grossularia spinis vidua, &c., according to him, is Æmbilla, and Linnzeus 
mentions three plants of this name (FV. Zeyl. 357. 403. 410.), of which the 
last may possibly be that figured by Burman, although Linnzeus considered it 
as his Ceanothus (Fl. Zeyl. 28.).. At any rate, none of the three 7Embillas 
seems to be the dnavinga, which is not mentioned i in the Flora Zeylanica, nor 
in the subsequent works of Linnzeus. 
M. Lamarck first introduced the plant into the modern systems of botany. 
From M. Sonnerat he received specimens of a plant, which he considered as 
