on the Hortus Malabaricus, Part II. 203 
which I think is the Belilla, or from the plant more fully deli- 
neated, and marked a, which is probably the Folium Principisse 
angustifolium, the flowers of which are represented as smaller 
than those of the Belilla. When the work of M. Lamarck last 
quoted was published, he had become sensible that the Mus- 
sendas should be separated from the Gardenias; and in the 
4th volume of the Encyclopédie (395.) the Gardenia appendicu- 
lata is by M. Poiret called Mussenda frondosa ; but he refers to 
the synonyma of M. Lamarck without range so that his plant 
is probably the Belilla. 
In a note respecting the Mussænda pubescens in the Hortus 
Kewensis(i. 373.) it is stated, **calyce brevissimo differt a M. fron- 
dosa, cui calycis foliola linearia, tubo corollæ parum breviora :” 
which shows that the author followed Willdenow, copying pro- 
bably from the Mantissa of Linnæus, in considering the plant of 
the Thesaurus Zeylanica as the proper Mussenda frondosa. 
In the Hortus Bengalensis (15.) the Belilla is quoted for the 
M. frondosa : but in this I suspect some mistake ; for the plant 
which I found growing in the garden, and the only Mussænda 
there with leafy appendages to the calyx, was the Folium Prin- 
cipisse angustifolium, having small yellow flowers. This I call 
Mussenda Dovinia ; while the Belilla should be called M. Belilla, 
the plant of Burman M. frondosa, and the plant of Ray and 
Hermann M. flacescens. 
MopirA CANN1, p. 29. fig. 19. 
Commeline in his annexed note supposes this to be a species 
of the Caniram (Hort. Mal. i. 67. t. 37.), that is, of the genus 
now called Strychnos; and Plukenet thought that it might be the 
same with his Solanum arborescens e Veracruce latifolium (Alm. 
350.), neither of which opinions is in the least tenable on account 
of the ten stamina and five styli. Hermann, Ray, and the elder 
VOL. XIV. QE Burman 
