on the Hortus Malabaricics, Part II. 211 



plants of Rumphius as belonging to the same species ; and it 

 must be confessed, that they have the utmost affinity. 



Notwithstanding this affinity, Linnaeus in the Flora Zeylayiica^ 

 although he does not quote the Herbarium Amboinense, not only 

 distinguished the plants, Avhich Rumphius had called Globuli 

 majorcs and the Fruiex globidorum, as species, but he placed the 

 former in the genus Gidlandina (156.), and the latter in that 

 called CcEialpmia (157. ); although it is by the fruit alone, that 

 these genera can be distinguished, and Linnaeus acknowledges 

 that the fruit of this Casalpinia is that of a Guilandina : but con- 

 cerning this genus his notions seem still later to have been very 

 confused ; as he included in it the Moringa of old botanists, 

 which has no sort of affinity to either plant of Rumphius. Lin- 

 naeus however separated the synonyma of the two plants, which 

 had been confounded together by Commeline, Plukenet, and 

 Burman, excluding several belonging to American plants, al- 

 though as synonymous with the Caretti he still quoted an Ame- 

 rican plant described by Plumier. 



In his first edition of the Species Plautarum, Linnaeus corrected 

 his error in placing the two plants of Rumphius in different ge- 

 nera, and reduced them both to Guilandina, in which he was 

 imitated by the younger Burman {Fl. Lid. 99- )• The Caretti 

 thus became the Guilandina Bonducella. Burman, although he 

 does not quote the plant of Plumier, restores that of Sloane, 

 and adds besides to the synonyma mentioned in the Flora Zey- 

 lanica the names given by Rumphius and Breynius, which no 

 doubt belong to the Caretti. 



M. Lamarck (Emc. Meth. i. 434.) made little change on the 

 synonyma of the G. Bonducella, restoring only the name of 

 Plumier ; to which Willdenow added quotations from Brown's 

 Jamaica, from Vahl, and from Forskael. How the latter could 



VOL. XIV. 2 F call 



