206 Dr. FRANcIs HaurrTowN's Commentary 
patens, petiolo triplo longior, uniflorus, incrassatus, tomen- 
tosus. Bracteæ ad pedunculi partem imam geminæ, deci- 
duæ, subpalmatæ, stipulas longitudine æquantes. Flores 
flavi, folio latiores, erecti. Calycis foliola quinque ovata, 
concava, acuta, quorum duo exteriora majora, tomentosa. 
Petala quinque calyce duplo longiora, obovata, oblique 
retusa, unguibus incrassatis mucronata. Filamenta decem 
alternis longioribus subulata, basi in urceolum hypogynum . 
sessilem coalita. Anthere orbiculatæ, compresse. Ger- 
men superum, subrotundum. Styli quatuor vel quinque, 
subulati, staminibus paulo longiores. Stigmata reniformia. 
Germen paulo auctum loculos habet quatuor vel quinque. 
From the last-mentioned circumstance we may probably con- 
jecture, that this is not only a different species from the Modera 
Canni; but, like the H. serrata, can scarcely be considered as 
belonging to the same genus, the fruit is so different, 
Carim Curini, p. 31. fig. 20. 
In his Phytographia (t. 171. f. 4.) Plukenet gave the figure of 
a plant, which he calls Curini forte, prima species, seu Carim 
Curini Hort. Malab., which implies that he doubted of his plant 
being the same with that of Rheede: and he seems to have 
suspected that it might rather be the Manja Curini (Hort. Mal.ix. 
t. 62.): but for this I see no reason ; and the elder Burman 
(Thes. Zeyl.) joins Plukenet's plant, without doubt, to the Carim 
Curini, as do most subsequent authors. Burman’s figure indeed 
(t. 4. f. 1.) is not so good as that of Plukenet: but he describes 
a plant with a white flower, while those of the Carim Curini are 
blue. This difference alone is however too slight to be reckoned 
a foundation for two species; yet Burman was justified in call- 
ing them varieties, in which however he is not followed by 
succeeding 
