on the Hortus Malabaricus, Part IT. 211 
plants of Rumphius as belonging to the same species; and it 
must be confessed, that they have the utmost affinity. 
Notwithstanding this aflinity, Linnæus in the Flora Zeylanica, 
although he does not quote the Herbarium Amboinense, not only 
distinguished the plants, which Rumphius had called Globuli 
majores and the Frutex globulorum, as species, but he placed the 
former in the genus:Guilandina (156.), and the latter in that 
called Cæsalpinia (157.); although it is by the fruit alone, that 
these genera can be distinguished, and Linnæus acknowledges 
that the fruit of this Cesalpinia is that of a Guilandina: but con- 
cerning this genus his notions seem still later to have been very 
confused; as he included in it the Moringa of old botanists, 
which has no sort of affinity to either plant of Rumphius. Lin- 
næus however separated the synonyma of the two plants, which 
had been confounded together by Commeline, Plukenet, and 
Burman, excluding several belonging to American plants, al- 
though as synonymous with the Caretti he still quoted an Ame- 
rican plant described by Plumier. - 
In his first edition of the Species Plantarum, Linnzeus corrected 
his error in placing the two plants of Rumphius in different ge- 
nera, and reduced them both to Guilandina, in which he was 
imitated by the younger Burman (Fl. Ind. 99.). The Caretti 
thus became the Guilandina Bonducella. Burman, although he 
does not quote the plant of Plumier, restores that of Sloane, 
and adds besides to the synonyma mentioned in the Flora Zey- 
lanica the names given by Rumphius and Breynius, which no 
doubt belong to the Caretti. 
M. Lamarck (Enc. Meth. 1. 434.) made little change on the 
synonyma of the G. Bonducella, restoring only the name of 
Plumier; to which Willdenow added quotations from Brown's 
Jamaica, from Vahl, and from Forskael. How the latter could 
VOL. XIV. 2r call 
