224 Dr. Francis Hamilton's Commentary 



own work, much less in any other. I must, however, confess that M. La- 

 marck's figure of the Guettarda speciosa (III. Gen. t. \bA.f. 3.) seems to me to 

 differ materially from the Rava Pou both in the form of the leaf and inflo- 

 rescence ; nor is the Rava Pou quoted either in the Hortus Kewensis (v. 279.) 

 or Hortus Bengalensis (86.) for the Guettarda speciosa, although it is usually 

 referred to by the authors, where they do not know some evident objection. 

 Still, I think, there can be no doubt of the Rava Pou being a Guettarda, and 

 totally different from the Jasminum hirsutum, as established by our worthy 

 President (vide Enc. Mith. Suppl. iii. 713.) ; but it may probably be a species 

 of Guettarda not yet introduced into the modern system of botany, nor have I 



seen the plant. 



Anavinga, p. 101. tah. 49. 



Commeline does not venture to propose any arrangement for this plant. 

 Plukenet retains the Indian name ; and Ray might as well have done so, for 

 by calling it a Baccifera Indica he adds nothing to our knowledge. The elder 

 Burman made some advance in comparing it, although with doubt, to his 

 "Grossularia spinis vidua, baccis in racemo congestis, spadiceis, foUis crenatis, 

 ovato-acuminatis" (Thes. Zeyl. 111./. 48.), which has, no doubt, a considerable 

 resemblance ; but as he ascribes to his plant many stamina, while Rheede de- 

 fines their number to be six in each flower, we may consider them as certainly 

 distinct. Still further, if Burman attended to the situation of the germen in 

 comparing his plant to the Grossularia, it must belong even to a different order 

 from the Anavinga, the calyx of which is evidently below the fruit. That 

 Burman, however, paid any attention to this circumstance is doubtful ; and I 

 am inclined to think that his Grossularia is, in fact, nearly allied to the Ana^ 

 vinga, although certainly a different species. The Ceylonese name of Burman's 

 Grossularia spinis vidua, &c., according to him, is JEtnbilla, and Linnaeus 

 mentions three plants of this name {Fl. Zeyl. 357. 403. 410.), of which the 

 last may possibly be that figured by Burman, although Linnaeus considered it 

 as his Ceanothus {Fl. Zeyl. 28.). At any rate, none of the three .^mbillas 

 seems to be the Anavinga, which is not mentioned in the Flora Zeylanica, nor 

 in the subsequent works of Linnaeus. 



M. Lamarck first introduced the plant into the modern systems of botany. 

 From M. Sonnerat he received specimens of a plant, which he considered as 



