on the Hortus Malabaricus, Part II. 295 
as we can judge from the imperfect figure of the first (Phyt. t. 146. 
f. 1.), it has simple leaves ; and the second, from the term diphyl- 
los, is probably equally unlike. 
Rumphius quotes the Nalugu for the Frutex aquosus mas (Herb. 
Amb. iv. 102. t. 44.), the stem of which is armed with prickles 
(trunci hinc inde spinulas quasdem gerentes, quæ in ordines lo- 
cuntur), while that of the Nalugu is unarmed. This error, 
excusable in the blindness of the venerable Dutch Governor, 
has led to several gross errors, some subsequent writers having 
blindly followed his quotation. 
M. Lamarck (Enc. Meth. i. 217.) quoted the Nalugu for the 
Aquilicia sambucina of Linneus (Mant. 211.), which he con- 
siders as the same with the Staphylea indica of Burman (F1. Ind. 
15. t. 24. f.2.), that is, the Gingiran of the Javanese ; and he 
considers the Frutex aquosus femina of Rumphius (Herb. Amb. 
iv. 103. £t. 44.), or Gangiran Murra of the Javanese, as a mere 
variety of the same species, rejecting the Frutex aquosus mas, 
which Rumphius had held to be the Na/ugu, and which Linnzus 
quoted for the Aquilicia sambucina : but the Aquilicia sambucina 
of Linnæus, the Staphylea indica of Burman, and the Frutex 
aquosus femina of Rumphius have bipinnated leaves, while those 
of the Nalugu are simply pinnated. Itis true, that M. Lamarck 
says, ‘ ses feuilles sont une ou deux fois ailées:” but this de- 
scription, I suspect, is derived from the figures of Rheede and 
Rumphius united, and not from nature; as he afterwards 
(ii. 611.) calls it Gastonia Nalugu foliis pinnatis foliolis serratis. 
' How he learned that it has ten stamina, on which account he 
classed it with the Gastonia, i do not know ; and I suspect, that 
this opinion may have merely arisen from an expression in the 
text, which, if fully considered, will not warrant such a conclu- 
sion. Rheede merely says, “ex medio florum eminet capitu- 
lum album (nectarium) quod in vertice decem denticulis bre- 
vibus 
