on the Hortus Malabaricus, Part II. 205 
bably some German translation) ; but the plant for which this is 
quoted is totally different from that of Rheede. 
Commeline considers the Cheru Chunda as the same with the 
Jurepeba mas of Piso, a Brazilian plant, which Willdenow I 
believe calls Solanum paniculatum ; but he only quotes the Jure- 
peba, without stating whether he meant the mas or femina. Com- 
meline's conjecture, however, concerning both Jurepebas seems 
equally ill-founded. 
Contrary to Commeline, but equally wrong, Plukenet trans- 
ferred the plant, which he took to be the Scheru Schunda, from 
the J'urepeba mas to the Jurepeba femina, as formerly mentioned. 
He quotes indeed the Scheru Schunda with doubt (Alm. 351.), 
and I think that the figure which he gives of his plant (Phyt. 
t. 316. f. 4.) represents the S. Jacquini, although Willdenow 
quoted it erroneously for his S. sodomæum (Sp. Pl. i. 1043.), as 
M. Poiret justly observes ( Enc. Meth. Sup. iii. 742.). 
The elder Burman considered the Cheru Chunda as the same 
with his S. frutescens, villosum, foliis undulatis, mollibus, subtus 
incanis, spinis flavescentibus armatum (Thes. Zeyl. 290. t. 102.), 
in which he seems right; but very little dependence can be - 
placed on his synonyma, some of which probably belong to the 
S. Jacquini. He says that its Ceylonese name is Tubuthu, of 
which Linnzus takes no notice. 
The younger Burman united the Cheru Chunda and his father's 
Solanum last mentioned with an American plant of Dillenius, 
which Linnæus at first (Fl. Zeyl. 94.) took to be the same with 
the Malabathu of the Ceylonese, mentioned by the elder Bur- 
man (Thes. Zeyl. 218.) as quite different from the Tubuthu or 
Cheru Chunda, and called by him Solanum indicum, spinosum, 
frutescens, maximum, villosum totum fructibus croceis. Linnæus 
indeed admits, that the plant of Dillenius differs a little from the 
Malabathu of Burman; and it is equally different from the 
Cheru 
