242 Dr. Francis Hamitton’s Commentary 
Linneus in the Flora Zeylanica (357.), if I understand him rightly, was 
sensible of this difference, but unable to point out the characters by which the 
two plants could be distinguished. He therefore, under the head Antidesma, 
gives two sets of synonyma separated by a line. In this, perhaps, he intended 
to refer the synonyma to the male and female plants, according as each author 
represented one or other. This, however, is not certain; and I rather am 
inclined, as I have said, to attribute the separation to his having been aware 
of a specific difference or variety. In the first set of synonyma is placed the 
Antidesma of Burman, and in the second the Noeli Tali. The synonyma of 
this are not unexceptionable, nor free from typographical errors, which may 
mislead. First, the Noeli Tali is said to be in Hort. Mal. p. 19. in place of 
p.115. Secondly, for the “Arbor Indica, ovali folio, flosculis plurimis in spicis 
summo ramulo dispositis acinifera" of Plukenet's Mantissa, we are referred to 
t. 329. in place of 339. This figure, although it evidently represents an Anti- 
desma, refers, in my opinion, to a species different from the Noeli Tali, and 
seems to me to represent the Mathasura of the Hindwi dialect, which I take to 
be the Antidesma pubescens, 8. of Willdenow, if that be different from the Ænti- 
desma paniculata. Thirdly, Linnzeus quotes among the synonyma of the Noeli 
ali the “ Planta folia habens oblongo-rotunda” of the elder Burman (Thes. 
Zeyl. 194.) and Herman, which the former says is the Keratya of the Ceylonese; 
and from the term * folia oblongo-rotunda,” I rather suspect that this belongs 
to the Mathasura rather than to the Noeli Tali; and I do so the more espe- 
cially, because Linnzeus alleges that the Æmbilla of the Ceylonese (Herm. 
Zeyl. 19. 26.) is the same with the Noeli Tali; but the ZEmbilla of Herman is 
only quoted by Burman among the synonyma of * Grossularia spinis vidua, 
baccis in racemo congestis, spadiceis, foliis crenatis, ovato-acuminatis" (Thes. 
Zeyl. 112. t. 48.), which has no resemblance to an Antidesma; nor does he 
mention which of Herman's /Embillas it is, although, from its having many 
stamina, it is, no doubt, the Rhamnicastrum of Linnæus (Fl. Zeyl. 410.), for 
which the latter, as well as for the Antidesma, quotes the Æmbilla 19. of 
Herman. We must therefore confine the Noeli Tali to the |4mbilla 26. of 
Herman, if Linnzus is right in quoting this, which I do not know. If he is 
right, then the Noeli Tali being the Æmbilla 26., and the Antidesma of Bur- 
man being the Keratya of the Ceylonese, the plants must be different. The 
