304 Dr, Francis Hamilton's Commentary 



flore pentapetalo, fructu caryophylloide of Raj-, which is probably 

 the same plant ; but then he united it with a plant of Sloane, and 

 with the Herba Vitiliginum of Rumphius, both having yellow 

 flowers, and with the Kikirindia of the Ceylonese. Some mis- 

 take, I have mentioned in treating of the Carai7ibii, seems to have 

 happened to Linnaeus respecting the Kikirindia, which is pro- 

 bably a plant in much request with the natives of Ceylon, as it 

 has no less than five other names. Now the Nir Carambu in all 

 parts of India is much used as a vegetable in the dishes of the 

 natives, and therefore is likely to have many names. 



Linnaeus, joining the l>iir Carambu with the plant of Ray 

 already mentioned, called it Jussiaa repens, fioribiis pentapetalis 

 decandris, pedunculis folio longioribtis (Fl. Zeyl. n. 169.), which in 

 the Species Plantarum became the Jussiaa repens. It is remark- 

 able, that in the Flora Zeylanica no Ceylonese name should be 

 attached to a plant so common and so much used ; while no less 

 than six names are given to the insignificant Ludwigia. This con- 

 firms me in the suspicion already mentioned, that some transpo- 

 sition of names has taken place, and that the Lysimachice species 

 fructu caryophylloideo Kikirindia zeylonensibus of Hermann and 

 Burman {Thes. Zeyl. 146.), with all its additional barbaric names, 

 actually belong to the Jussicea repens, while the Dyanilla {Linn. 

 Fl. Zeyl. 498.) is the Ludwigia diffusa or Carambu. 



It would indeed appear, when the younger Burman published 

 the Flora Indica (103.), that he, and probably Linnaeus, had 

 become sensible of this mistake in the Flora Zeylanica ; for 

 among the synonyma of the /. repens we have the I^ysimachia 

 fructu caryophylloideo Kikirindia zeylonensibus of Burman, thus 

 setting every thing right : but by some fatality this quotation is 

 omitted by Willdenow, who refers to the Flora Zeylanica alone 

 {Sp. PL ii. 574.), and does not mention Burman ; and the same 

 is the case with M. Lamarck {Enc. Meth. iii. 330.). I think, 



therefore, 



