on the Hortus Malabaricus, Part 11. 213 



part of the house; but this meaning of FJt/peranthera also applies 

 to nothing remarkable in the genus. 



Cvpi, p.37.Jig.23. 



Commeline does not compare this to any plant known before ; 

 and the plants with which Plukenet compares it (Aim. 125. 

 Amalth. 69-) seem to have no great resemblance, at any rate 

 they are not the same. Linnfeus therefore {Flora Zeylanica 80.) 

 justly rejected them, when he referred this plant to the genus 

 Rondeletia, which had been established by Plumier ; although 

 he admits that there are differences in the characters of the 

 plants. He quotes Ray and Commeline as having described his 

 Rondeletia ; but it is likely, that they took their account from 

 the Hortus Malabaricus; and, as they call it merely Frutex in- 

 dicus baccifer, it is evident that they knew little of its affinities. 



When Linna3us published the Species Plantarum, he called 

 this plant Rondeletia asiatica, a name adopted by the younger 

 Burman, who made no change on the synonyma. The fruit of 

 the Rondeletia is a capsule ; but that of the Cupi is a berry. 

 " Fructus sunt maturi nigricantes saporis subdulcis et in edu- 

 liis." Willdenow {Sp. PL i. 1224.) was therefore perfectly jus- 

 tifiable in removing it from the genus Rondeletia ; but in his 

 arrangement he errs much further than Linnaeus ; for he places 

 it among the Contortce in place of the Rubiacea; and still further 

 he joins it in the same genus with the Tsjeru Kara, which is a 

 Canthium, and has only one seed in each cell of the fruit. Will- 

 denow indeed makes this a distinguishing character of the genus 

 Webera ; but Rheede says, " In hisce fructibus sunt septem, 

 octove plus minus semina, quae in medio intersepimento, quod 

 fructum in Ion sum secat, in duos ordines sunt distincta." M. Poi- 

 ret was therefore much in the right {Enc. Meth. vi. 256.) to 

 leave the Cupi rather where it had been placed by Linnaeus, 



2 F 2 than 



