on the Hortus Malabaricus, Part II. 181 
first constituted the species, since called Limonia acidissima, he 
meant the plant of the Hortus Malabaricus, nor did he then 
quote the work of Rumphius. 
Narum PANEL, p. 11. fig. 10. 
Nothing well could be a more rude classification than the 
reckoning this of the same genus with the preceding plant, 
except that of Commeline in comparing it with the Nimbo of 
Acosta, now called Melia Azadirachta, as Plukenet justly ob- 
served (Mant. 139.). 3 
The elder Burman (Thes. Zeyl. 231.), with a classification 
scarcely less objectionable than that of Commeline, called this 
plant Uva zeylanica, sylvestris, Mali armeniacæ sapore, Uves de 
Mato Lusitanis; and considered it as the same with the. Palu- 
kena of Herman. Ray, not knowing any plant with which it 
could be compared, did not give it a proper name, but called it 
Frutex baccifer fructu ad singulos flores multiplici. Linnzeus early 
perceived (FI. Zeyl. 224.) that this could not be reduced to any 
genus then known; and therefore, giving its characters at full 
length (/. c. App. 11.), called it Uvaria, from the resemblance to 
a grape, which had been noticed by Burman. He retained 
exactly the synonyma that have been already mentioned. 
In the Flora Indica (124.) of Burman we find an addition 
made to the synonyma, by annexing the Funis musarius of 
Rumphius (Herb. Amb. v. 18.), although that excellent botanist 
under this name includes two plants, which very likely do not 
belong to the same genus with each other. The Funis musarius 
latifolius, which is represented in plate 42, is no doubt an Uvaria, 
which I have examined ; but I do not think that it is the same 
with the Narum Panel, which is now called Uvaria zeylanica 
(Burm. Fl. Ind. 124. Willd. Sp. Pl. ti. 1261. Enc. Meth. i. 
596. Hort. Kew. iii. 333.) Whether Burman, Willdenow and 
2522 Lamarck 
