on the Hortus Malabaricus, Part II. 213 
part of the house; but this meaning of Hyperanthera also applies 
to nothing remarkable in the genus. 
Curt, p.37. fig. 23. 
Commeline does not compare this to any plant known before; 
and the plants with which Plukenet compares it (A/m. 125. 
Amalth. 69.) seem to have no great resemblance, at any rate 
they are not the same. Linnæus therefore (Flora Zeylanica 80.) 
justly rejected them, when he referred this plant to the genus 
Rondeletia, which had been established by Plumier; although 
he admits that there are differences in the characters of the 
plants. He quotes Ray and Commeline as having described his 
Rondeletia ; but it is likely, that they took their account from 
the Hortus Malabaricus; and, as they call it merely Frutex in- 
dicus baccifer, it is evident that they knew little of its affinities. 
When Linnæus published the Species Plantarum, he called 
this plant Rondeletia asiatica, a name adopted by the younger 
Burman, who made no change on the synonyma. The fruit of 
the Rondeletia is a capsule; but that of the Cupi is a berry. 
** Fructus sunt maturi nigricantes saporis subdulcis et in edu- 
liis.” Willdenow (Sp. PL. i. 1224.) was therefore perfectly jus- 
tifiable in removing it from the genus Rondeletia; but in his 
arrangement he errs much further than Linnzus; for he places 
it among the Contortæ in place of the Rubiacee ; and still further 
he joins it in the same genus with the Tsjeru Kara, which is a 
Canthium, and has only one seed in each cell of the fruit. Will- 
denow indeed makes this a distinguishing character of the genus 
Webera; but Rheede says, ‘In hisce fructibus sunt septem, 
octove plus minus semina, quæ in medio intersepimento, quod 
fructum in longum secat, in duos ordines sunt distincta." M. Poi- 
ret was therefore much in the right (Enc. Meth. vi. 256.) to 
leave the Cupi rather where it had been placed by Linnzus, 
2r2 than 
