on the Hortus Malabaricus, Part II. 203 



which I think is the Belillo, or from the plant more fully deli- 

 neated, and marked a, which is probably the Folium Principissa 

 angustifolium, the flowers of which are represented as smaller 

 than those of the Be HI la. When the work of M. Lamarck last 

 quoted was published, he had become sensible that the Mus- 

 sandas should be separated from the Gardenias ; and in the 

 4th volume of the Encyclopedie (395.) the Gardenia appendicu- 

 lata is by M. Poiret called Musscenda frondosa ; but he refers to 

 the synonyma of M. Lamarck Avithout change, so that his plant 

 is probably the Belilla. 



In a note respecting the Musscenda pubesceus in the Hortus 

 Kcwensis(i. 373.) it is stated, " calyce brevissimo differt a AT. fron- 

 dosa, cui calycis foliola linearia, tubo coroUae parum breviora :" 

 which shows that the author followed Willdenow, copying pro- 

 bably from the Mantissa of Linnaeus, in considering the plant of 

 the Thesaurus Zeylanica as the proper Musscenda frondosa. 



In the Hortus Bengalensis (15.) the Belilla is quoted for the 

 M. frondosa : but in this I suspect some mistake ; for the plant 

 which I found growing in the garden, and the only Musscenda 

 there with leafy appendages to the calyx, was the Folium Prin- 

 cipissce angustifolium, having small yellow flowers. This I call 

 Musscenda Dovinia ; while the Belilla should be called M. Belilla, 

 the plant of Burman M. frondosa, and the plant of Ray and 

 Hermann M.favescens. 



MoDiRA Canni, p. 29- fg- 19- 

 Commeline in his annexed note supposes this to be a species 

 of the Caniram {Hort. Mai. i. 67. t. 37), that is, of the genus 

 now called Strychnos; and Plukenet thought that it might be the 

 same with his Solaniim arhorescens e Veracruce latifolium {Aim. 

 350.), neither of which opinions is in the least tenable on account 

 of the ten stamina and five styli.- Hermann, Ray, and the elder 

 VOL. XIV. 2 E Burman 



