on the Hortus Malahariciis, Part II. 181 



first constituted the species, since called Limonia acidissima, he 

 meant the plant of the Hortus Malabaricus, nor did he then 

 quote the work of Rumphius. 



Narum Panel, p. 11. jig. 10. 



Nothing well could be a more rude classification than the 

 reckoning this of the same genus with the preceding plant, 

 except that of Commeline in comparing it with the JSimbo of 

 Acosta, now called Melia Azadirachta, as Plukenet justly ob- 

 served {Mont. 139.). 



The elder Burman {Thes. Zeyl. 231.), with a classification 

 scarcely less objectionable than that of Commeline, called this 

 plant Uva zeylanica, sylvestrh, Mali armeniaca sapore, Uves de 

 Mato Lusitanis ; and considered it as the same with the Palu- 

 kena of Herman. Ray, not knowing any plant with which it 

 could be compared, did not give it a proper name, but called it 

 Frutex baccifer fructu ad singulosjiores multiplici. Linnaeus early 

 perceived {Fl. Zeyl. 224.) that this could not be reduced to any 

 genus then known ; and therefore, giving its characters at full 

 length (1. c. App. 11 .), called it Uvaria, from the resemblance to 

 a grape, which had been noticed by Burman. He retained 

 exactly the synonyma that have been already mentioned. 



In the Flora Indica (124.) of Burman we find an addition 

 made to the synonyma, by annexing the Funis musarins of 

 Rumphius {Herb. Amb. v. 78.), although that excellent botanist 

 under this name includes two plants, which very likely do not 

 belong to the same genus with each other. The Funis musarius 

 latifolius, which is represented in plate 42, is no doubt an Uvaria, 

 which 1 have examined ; but I do not think that it is the same 

 with the Narum Panel, which is now called Uvaria zeylanica 

 {Burm. Fl. Ind. 124. JVilld. Sp. PI. ii. 1261. Enc. Meth. i. 

 596. Ilort. Kew. iii. 333.) Whether Burman, Willdenow and 



2 B 2 Lamarck 



