300 Dr. FRANc1s HauirToN's Commentary 
is evident, that the quotation from Burman should be excluded 
from the Ludwigia of the Flora Zeylanica. 
This Ludwigia of the Flora Zeylanica in the Flora Indica (37.) 
of the younger Burman, together with the Carambu, both of 
which have alternate leaves and four petals, and the plant of the 
elder Burman, which has five petals, became the Ludwigia per- 
ennis foliis oppositis ! and, what is still worse, the same Carambu 
and plant of Burman, with the plant of Hermann, quoted as 
above mentioned by Plukenet, which is no doubt the Carambu, 
is quoted for the Jussieua suffruticosa, while it is an annual 
plant! Such inaccuracies, copied probably from the first edition 
of the Species Plantarum, increase very much the suspicion, that 
it was Linnzus, and not the elder Burman, that had fallen into 
the error respecting the Kikirinda and Dyanilla. 
Willdenow (Sp. Pl. ii. 577.), perceiving the error of quoting 
the Carambu for two plants, gives it to the Jussieua suffruticosa, 
although I strongly suspect, that for this he ought to have quoted 
the Cattu Carambu, next to be noticed, and which the younger 
Burman called Jussieua suffruticosa B (Fl. Ind. 103.), which has 
4 petals and 8 stamina. Willdenow’s meaning, however, con- 
cerning the Jussieua suffruticosa is very difficult to ascertain, as 
he quotes for it Rumph. Amb. 6. t. 41., in which three plants are 
represented, one being the Lycopodium Phlegmaria, and the other 
two seem to be Orchidee. The Ludwigia of the Flora Zeylanica, 
which has alternate leaves, and which, from the description, is 
certainly the Carambu, Willdenow calls Ludwigia oppositifolia, 
by which he no doubt means the L. perennis of Linnzus and 
Burman. 
M. Lamarck quotes the Carambu, and the plant of Hermann, 
cited by Plukenet as above mentioned, and no doubt the same 
with the Carambu, for his Jussiæa caryophyllea (Enc. Meth. iii. 
331.). He probably was unable in his dried specimen to observe 
the 
