on the Hortus Malabaricus, Part II. 185 
major, serrata et sylvestris of preceding authors. On comparing 
every thing that he says, respecting the above-mentioned di- 
stinctions, I cannot perceive that they afford any sufficient rea- 
son for considering the plants as distinct species: but he has a 
remark, which, were it accurate, might afford room for a real 
distinction, which will appear evident, if we compare what I 
have already quoted from Rumphius, concerning the leaves of 
the Lagondium vulgare, with what follows concerning those of 
the L. litoreum. ‘ Folia plerumque quinque simul locata sunt, 
— quorum bina inferiora tempore decidunt, unde in ramis flori- 
feris et frugiferis ternata tantum semper sunt, in surculis vero 
semper quina sunt." Now in the Lagondium vulgare, * folia 
semper sunt simplicia vel ternata." 
Linnæus however, in his first edition of the Species Plantarum, 
followed by the younger Burman (F1. Ind. 137, 138.), rejects 
altogether this distinction of Rumphius ; and, although he adds 
the Lagondium vulgare as synonymous with the Cara Nosi, which 
he calls Vitex trifolia, and the Lagondium litoreum as synony- 
mous with the Bem Nosi, which he calls Viter Negundo, he attri- 
butes to both **folia ternata quinataque," and returns to the 
old distinction of **foliola integerrima and f. serrata," which I 
know to be totally futile, as leaves of both descriptions may 
usually be observed on the same individual plant. He adds 
however another distinguishing mark, namely that the Vitex tri- 
folia has panicula dichotoma, and the Vitex Negundo flores race- 
moso-paniculati. I do not think, however, that either term is 
strictly applicable to the plant, which I have seen, although as 
corrected by Mr. R. Brown (Nov. Hol. i. 512.) ** paniculæ ra- 
chis stricta, rami subdichotomi," the term is applicable to the 
Vitex common about the hedges of India. Burman adds, as a 
variety to the Viter trifolia, thie Vitex trifolia floribus per ramos 
sparsis 
