on the Hortus. Malabaricus, Part II. 201 
plant: ** Notandum est quod. in Hort. Malab. calyx brevis et 
quinquedentatus tantum exhibeatur, quum in nostra planta sit 
tenuis—in quinque radios longitudine floris productus, longus, 
hirsutus.” He also supposes that Rheede represented the Be- 
lilla as.smooth ; but does not lay much stress on this circum- 
stance, because, as he justly observes, the pubescence of plants 
is often omitted in the figures of the Hort. Malabaricus, That 
however does not seem to me to be the case in the figure of the 
Belilla, the leaves of which atleast are represented as hispid. 
The other parts, indeed, which in Burman’s figure (t. 76.) are 
represented hirsute, appear smooth in the H. Malabaricus, pro- 
bably from. the carelessness of the draughtsman, as Burman 
observes. Burman justly distinguishes his plant from the Folium 
Principisse of Rumphius. This indeed he does upon bad 
grounds; because, judging merely from the figure (liable to the 
same error with the Hort. Malab.), he supposes the plant of 
Rumphius to be smooth; but in the description already quoted 
Rumphius expressly calls the leaves hairy (pilosa). When how- 
ever Burman published the Herbarium Amboinense, he retracted 
this distinction, and. adhered to all the synonyma except the 
Belilla, which he does not mention ; nor does he notice any dif- 
ference between the F. Principisse latifolium and angustifolium. 
Linnæus in the Flora Zeylanica (84.) describes the Mussenda 
of Hermann, which should theretore have yellow bracts; and ac- 
cordingly he adds as synonymous the plant of Ray with bracts of 
this colour: but, like Burman, he also quotes Ray for his Frutex 
indicus baccifer, fructu oblongo polyspermo, which may be diffe- 
rent from the Mussenda arbor Indica, and the same with the 
Mussenda Zeylanica of Burman, which is also quoted ; as is even 
the Belilla, which Burman seems to have abandoned. It is im- 
possible, therefore, from the synonyma alone to say which plant 
Linnzus meant. 
When 
