166 Dr. Francis Hamilton's Commentary 



Pomum magnitudine fructus Juglandis subrotundnm, calyce truncate umbili- 

 catum, parietibus crassis intus in putamen tenue induratis biloculaie. 

 Receptacula e medio septi utrinque enata, membranacea, bifida. Semina 

 plura horizontalia, bifariam in singulis pomi loculis nidulantia, pulpo 

 carnoso tecta. 

 It must be observed, that the Gardenia uliginosa {Hort. Beng. 13.; Hort. 

 Kew. i. 370.; ^TUld. Sp. PI. i. 1228.) differs in no essential generic character 

 from the preceding, and therefore I entirely approve of M. Poiret having called 

 it Randia uliginosa {Enc. MMh. Suppl. ii. 829.), under which name I have pre- 

 sented specimens to the library at the India House. That the Genipa {Gcertn. 

 De Sem. t. 190.) is to be considered as a different genus seems very doubtful. 

 I did not examine the position of the embryo in the seeds of the Randia uligi- 

 nosa, and therefore cannot say whether it is similar to that in the Genipa ; but 

 Gsertner's figure of the fruit of the latter is, on the whole, a good representa- 

 tion of that of the Randia uliginosa ; and I must protest against such minute 

 differences in structure, as Gsertner here relies on, being held as a sufficient 

 ground for tearing asunder natural genera, a practice, I am sorry to say, now 

 too common among botanists. 



TsjEROu Katou Naregam, seu Tsjeru Catu Narejam, ;>. 31. tab. 14. 

 In the commentary on the Mai Naregam I have noticed the mistakes which 

 have arisen from the carelessness of Rheede, or of his editors, in prefixing to 

 the figure of that plant the specific names Tsjeru and Catu, which belong to 

 this, with only the order reversed. The Brahmans of Malabar, as well as the 

 vulgar, class this with the Citrus. With his usual want of care in the ortho- 

 graphy of Indian words, Rheede in the plate not only spells the vulgar name 

 differently from what he does in the text, but the name said to be given by 

 the Brahmans in the plate is Naringi (Orange), while in the text it is Cit 

 Rana Nimha {alba, f era Citrus). All these names, however, agree in classing 

 it with the Citrus, while even Commeline condemns in some sort this arrange- 

 ment, which was however adopted by Ray, who called it Mains Limonia Indica 

 fructu pusillo (Hist. Plant. 1658.). Plukenet, who at first followed tlie same 

 idea, and called it Malus Limonia Lentisci foliis Zeylanica, fructu minimo, 

 twarum magnitudine ceviulo {Aim. 239.), afterwards {Mant. 125.) became sen- 



