202 Dr. Francis HamiLTon’s Commentary 
When the younger Burman published the Flora Indica (53.) 
matters had not improved. He quotes for his Mussenda fron- 
dosa the Flora Zeylanica, his father's Thesaurus, the Folium Prin- 
cipissæ without distinguishihg the two species, and the Bedilla. 
He indeed omits both plants of Ray; but he quotes the plant 
with yellow bracts described by D. Pryon in words nearly the 
same with those used by our great English botanist. - : 
In Willdenow (Sp. PI. i. 997.) the synonyma for the Belilla or 
Mussenda frondosa undergo no change for the better. He adds 
indeed a quotation from Vahl, and restores both the synonyma 
of Ray, omitting the name of D. Pryon: butfrom these changes 
nothing enables us to say which plant he meant. This passage, 
however, from the note annexed (Bractea altera cujusvis pedi- 
celli enata in folium album) may enable us to infer, that his spe- 
cimen belonged to the species described and figured by the elder 
Burman. 
M. Lamarck, however in general accurate, having totally mis- 
taken the character of the Gardenia, in supposing it to have a 
berry divided into two or four cells, naturally enough reduced 
the Mussenda frondosa to that genus, calling it Gardenia appen- 
diculata, with the synonyma as in Willdenow, Vahl excepted 
(Enc. Meth. ii. 608.) ; but it would appear that his specimens 
belonged to the plant of Rheede, as the leaves were sharp- 
pointed and hairy, the flowers red, and the white leafy appendix 
proceeded from the calyx. He indeed adds, that the flowers 
have ‘ une odeur aromatique fort agréable ;" while Rheede 
says, * suntque odoris nullius." As his specimens were com- 
municated by M. Sonnerat, probably in a dry state, we may 
perhaps be allowed to suppose that this sweet smell is taken 
from the account given by Rumphius of the Folium Principisse 
latifolium, which is certainly a species totally different from that 
given by M. Lamarck (Jil. Gen. t. 157. f. 1.), and marked b.c.d, 
which 
