212 Dr. Francis HAMILTON’s Commentary 
call this plant a Glycyrrhiza, seems very remarkable, and I sus- 
pect some error in his being quoted. 
In the Hortus Kewensis (ii. 32.) the author returns to the 
opinion of the elder Burman, and considers the Bonducella as 
the same with the Bonduc, quoting for his plant, which he calls 
G. Bonduc, the Globuli majores of Rumphius, and omitting the 
Caretti, which I consider the same on account of the lower leaf- 
lets resembling stipulæ, which is not the case in the G. Bonduc 
of Linnæus, that is, the Frutex globulorum, a plant which, it 
would seem, the author of the Hortus Kewensis had not seen, 
and which is indeed rare in India proper, if it be found there at 
all. 
Dr. Roxburgh received the G. Bonduc from Sumatra, and 
returned to the first opinion of Linnzus, calling it a Cesalpinia; 
but then he transferred along with it the Bonducella or Caretti, 
and I must confess, that, upon a full examination of a good 
many species, [ can observe no other distinction between the 
leguminous Guilandinas and the Cesalpinias than a prickly and 
smooth legumen; and even this distinction is rendered less 
striking from the fruit of the Casalpinia Mimosoides, which is not 
indeed prickly, but is covered with hairy tubercles, so that it 
cannot be called smooth: but to this I shall have occasion 
to return, when I treat of the Kal Todda Vadi. If al the 
leguminous Guilandinas were with Dr. Roxburgh joined with 
the Cesalpinias, the name Guilandina could with propriety be 
reserved for the species with capsules, and we might thus be rid 
of the modern Greek Hyperanthera, which, if it has any mean- 
ing, implies nimis floridus, a term by no means applicable to the 
genus. Even admitting the botanical anthera to be convertible 
into the Greek «»/zzoc, Hyperanthera would imply occupying the 
higher part of the anthera as vzsgoizo; implies occupying the higher 
part 
