244 Dr. Francis Hamiuron’s Commentary 
Geertner has no great resemblance to that of the Berberis, while Rheede says, 
* Bacce cylindraceze— Berberis fructibus persimiles.”. We may therefore con- 
clude that Gzertner has not delineated the fruit of the Noeli Tali, and that 
therefore his 4. alexiteria is different from that of Lamarck, whose account is 
taken entirely from Rheede. 
M. Lamarck thinks that Rheede described merely a female tree of the Noel 
Tali, and, therefore, that the three stamina which he mentions are in reality 
styli. "This would obviate one objection to the Noeli Tali being the A. alexi- 
teria; but as several Antidesmas have three stamina, this remains very doubt- 
ful, especially as Burman in his Antidesma, so nearly allied to the Noeli Tali, 
describes the flowers, * stamina habentes tria calyce longiora, apicibus ex duo- 
' which evidently alludes to real stamina, and 
not to styli, although he says, “ post flores Bacce sequuntur Berberi dumeto- 
rum similes," just as Rheede, after describing the stamina of his plant, says, 
“ flosculis succedunt baccæ.” Any one may indeed be satisfied that the figure 
of Burman represents a male, while that of Rheede represents a female; but 
then, in the two separate flowers which the latter gives, the three stamina with 
their antherce are evidently delineated quite differently from the female flowers 
on the spikes. We may therefore, I think, conjecture, that the 4. alexiteria of 
M. Lamarck is the Noeli Tali, and not that of Gartner. 
This unlucky plant has led Willdenow into worse mistakes than any yet 
mentioned, as he quotes it both for his Stilago Bunius (Sp. Pl. iv. 714.) and 
Antidesma alexiteria (Sp. Pl. iv.762.). The genus Stilago, first founded by the 
younger Burman (FI. Ind. 16.), and for which he quoted the Bunius sativus of 
Rumphius (Herb. Amb. iii. 204. ¢. 131.), has hermaphrodite flowers; and I 
know a plant that entirely agrees with the character which he gives; but this 
is totally different from that given by Willdenow from Schreber; and I know 
that Dr. Roxburgh considered his Stilago Bunius and S. diandra as not really 
distinct from the Antidesmas, as differing merely in the number of stamina; 
and M. Poiret is of a similar opinion (Enc. Méth. Suppl. i. 403.). The fruit 
in both is in fact a drupa. Whether or not Burman was right in quoting 
Rumphius for his Stilago, I shall not here inquire. It suffices to state here 
that the plant of Rumphius, having leaves agreeably acid, cannot be the Noeli 
Tali, of which the leaves are insipid. If, therefore, the Bunius sativus of 
bus veluti globulos compositis,’ 
