214 Dr. Francis HaurrToN's Commentary 
than to join it thus with the Canthium. If howeverWilldenow had 
rejected from his genus Jlcbera the Tsjeru Kara, and the generic 
character which he had chosen, the Cupi would have afforded a 
well defined character for distinguishing a new genus of plants, 
as has been done by Gærtner (De Sem. iii. 71. t. 192. f. 5.), 
by whom the Cupi is called Webera corymbosa. 
Carru SCHIRAGAM, p. 39. fig. 24. 
Commeline has not given us any opinion concerning this 
plant. Plukenet proposes with doubt, whether it is the same 
with his Eupatoria Conyzoides, integro Jacobeæ folio, molli, et in- 
cano Indie orientalis (Alm. 140. Phyt. t. 177. f. 1.); but the 
elder Burman (Thes. Zeyl. 193.) justly rejects this opinion. 
The plant of Plukenet, with Breynius, he calls Jaceæ ct Serra- 
tule adfinis, capitulis Bacharidis, foliis Trachelie, Zeylanica ; 
while the plant of Rheede he calls Scabiosa conyzoides, foliis latis, 
dentatis, semine amaro, lumbricos enecante (Thes. Zeyl. 210.) ; 
and he gives a good figure (t. 05.) for the express purpose of 
enabling the reader to compare it with the figure of Plukenet, 
so as at once to perceive the difference (p. 113.). Strange 
however to say, along with the synonyma properly belonging to 
this Scabiosa, he joins (p. 210.) not only the Jaceæ et Serratule 
adfinis of Breynius, but the very plant of Plukenet, which he 
has said was different. No reliance can therefore be placed on 
the synonyma, which he quoted for either plant, and the more 
especially as he quotes three other figures of Plukenet (Phyt. 
t. 87. f.2. t. 154. f. 4. and t. 159. f. 4.), the last of which is 
the Spilanthes Pseudo /Emella of Willdenow. 
Linnæus in the Flora Zeylanica (p.418.), not being satisfied 
to what genus the Scabiosa of Burman should be referred, called 
it Baccharioides ; but he did not quote the Cattu Schiragam. 
Doubting the accuracy of Burman, but unwilling to offend him, 
| ' he 
