210 Dr. Francis Hamiuton’s Commentary 
simplices, steriles, ventrales triphylla, uniflore foliolis sub- 
æqualibus, flore paulo longioribus. Flores mediocres, albi, 
labio inferiore ad basin rubro punctato. Calyx ultra me- 
dium quinquefidum laciniis acutis, lanceolatis, carinatis, 
æqualibus. Corolla ringens, pubescens, nervosa: labium 
superius erectum, ovatum, apice bifidum ; inferius revolu- 
tum, ultra medium trifidum laciniis oblongis, obtusis, qua- 
rum intermedia latior, basi rugis coloratis bifariis picta. 
Filamenta duo longitudine fere floris, apice membranaceo 
dilatata. Antherarum loculi discreti, inferiore basi corni- 
culato. Capsula ungue compresso longitudine calycis pe- 
dicellata, ovata, compressa pubescens, bivalvis, bilocularis, 
ad latera angustiora dehiscens, valvis medio septiferis. 
Semina solitaria, echinata, retinaculo subtensa. 
CanzETTI, p. 35. fig. 22. 
Commeline in his Commentary, Plukenet (Alm. 4.), and the 
elder Burman (Thes. Zeyl. 4.), seem to have confounded with 
the Caretti the synonyma belonging to the plant called by Lin- 
"neus Guilandina Bonduc, although the last-mentioned author 
published after having had an opportunity of seeing the work 
of Rumphius, by whom the Caretti was called Globuli majores — 
(Herb. Amb. v. 92.), while the Bonduc was called Frutex globu- 
lorum (l.c. 89.). Burman, however, even in his notes on Rum- 
phius, published after the Thesaurus Zeylanicus, persists in refer- 
ring the Caretti to the Frutex globulorum, adding the synonyma 
which belong to the Bonduc ; while for both the Frutex globu- 
lorum and Globuli majores he quotes the same figure of Plukenet 
(Phyt. t. ii. f. 2.), which indeed is so imperfect, that it may be 
supposed to represent either, had not the synonyma which 
Plukenet quoted (A/m. 4.) pointed out that he meant the Bon- 
duc. Burman, therefore, in all probability considered both 
plants 
