e 
104 Dr. Francis HAMILTON’s Commentary 
that I know ; yet in the number of parts, and even structure of 
the most essential organs, such as the antheræ, there are great 
differences existing between different species; which shows the 
impropriety of founding new genera on differences of number, or 
even of structure in minute parts, however essential, where there 
are no corresponding differences in habit or general appear- 
ance. 
Brarrr, p. 43. tab. 40. 
Both Rheede and his commentator considered this as a species 
of Eugenia, to which it no doubt has some affinity, although this 
is not very striking. No further notice, except a slight one by 
Camelli published by Ray, was taken of this plant, until Rum- 
phius described it under the name of Mangium caseolare (Herb. 
Amb. iii. 111.), without however noticing its being the Blatti of 
Rheede. "This, indeed, is done in the observation annexed by 
Burman, 113, who says that Rumphius noticed the identity of 
the plants; but I have not discovered where he says so. Rum- 
phius divides the Mangium caseolare into two kinds; album, 
figured in żab. 73, and rubrum, figured in tab. 74. The only diffe- 
rence, however, which he mentions is, that the former has round, 
and the latter quadrangular branches: ** Ejus (M. cas. rubri) 
ramuli non sunt rotundi, sed quadrati, et quasi alati, ita ut oras 
gerant acutas:" and in fact the figure(74.) represents the branches 
of this form, while in tab. 73 they are round. This difference, I 
suspect, is not to be relied upon as sufficient; for in the plants 
which I have seen, both on the banks of the Ganges and of the 
Erawadi, the description of Rheede is perfectly applicable : 
“Rami et surculi teneriores quadranguli— vetustiores vero alis 
privati ac rotundiores," as may be observed in the specimens 
from the Ganges which I have deposited in the library at the 
India House. One circumstance, however, might seem to indi- 
cate some difference between the plants of Rheede and Rum- 
phius. 
