210 Dr. Francis Hamilton's Commetitary 



simplices, steriles, ventrales triphyllae, uniflorae foliolis sub- 

 aequalibus, flore paulo longioribus. Florcs mediocres, albi, 

 labio inferiore ad basin rubro punctate. Calyx ultra me- 

 dium quinquefidum laciniis acutis, lanceolatis, carinatis, 

 aequalibus. Corolla ringens, pubescens, nervosa : labium 

 superius erectum, ovatum, apice bifidum ; inferius revolu- 

 tum, ultra medium trifidum laciniis oblongis, obtusis, qua- 

 rum intermedia latior, basi rugis coloratis bifariis picta. 

 Filamenta duo longitudine fere floris, apice membranaceo 

 dilatata. Aiitherarum loculi discreti, inferiore basi corni- 

 culato. Capsula ungue compresso longitudine calycis pe- 

 dicellata, ovata, compressa pubescens, bivalvis, bilocularis, 

 ad latera angustiora dehiscens, valvis medio septiferis. 

 Semina solitaria, echinata, retinaculo subtensa. 



Caretti, p. 35. Jig. 22. 



Comraeline in his Commentary, Plukenet {Aim. 4.), and the 

 elder Burman {Th.es. Zeyl. 4.), seem to have confounded with 

 the Caretti the synonyma belonging to the plant called by Lin- 

 naeus Guilandina Bonduc, although the last-mentioned author 

 published after having had an opportunity of seeing the work 

 of Rumphius, by whom the Caretti was called Globuli majores 

 {Herb. Amb. v. 92.), while the Bonduc was called Frutex globii- 

 lorum {I. c. 89.). Burman, however, even in his notes on Rum- 

 phius, published after the Thesaurus Zeylanicus, persists in refer- 

 ring the Caretti to the Frutex globulorum, adding the synonyma 

 which belong to the Bonduc ; while for both the Frutex globu- 

 lorum and Globuli majores he quotes the same figure of Plukenet 

 {Phyt. t. ii. f. 2.), which indeed is so imperfect, that it may be 

 supposed to represent either, had not the synonyma which 

 Plukenet quoted {Aim. 4.) pointed out that he meant the Bon- 

 duc. Burman, therefore, in all probability considered both 



plants 



