on the Ilortiis Malabaricus, Part IF. 243 



only synonyma, therefore, of the Noeli Tall given by Linnaeus in the Flora 

 Zei/huiica, that can be admitted, are the JEmbilla 26., and the Berherls Ind'ica 

 auruntil folio of Commeline, Ray, and Plukenet. It must be further observed, 

 that tlie Jnttdesma of Linnaeus {Fl. Zeyl. 357.) has five stamina, and it there- 

 fore can neither be the Noeli Tali of Rhecde nor the Antide.sma of Burman, 

 but is probably the Arbor Indica, ovali folio, flosculis plurimis in spicis sinnmo 

 ramulo di.tpositis, acinifera of Plukenet ; and therefore I am still by no means 

 certain that Burman was mistaken in considering his Antidesma and the Noeli 

 Tali as the same. 



Even after the publication of the Species Plantarum, matters were not im- 

 proved in the Flora Indica of the younger Burman, for along with the pentan- 

 drous Antidesma alexiteria we have the triandrous Noeli Tali and Antidesma 

 of Burman conjoined with the last-mentioned tree of Plukenet, which, having 

 five stamina, is probably the plant really meant. Along with these, which 

 probably form three distinct species, the younger Burman quotes the "Berheri 

 dumetorum, baccus similes ferens Arbor" Hermanni herb. ; but I cannot trace 

 any such plant in either the Thesaurus or Flora Zeylanica ; nor do I know 

 that any such now exists in Herman's collection. The younger Burman, 

 mixing together the two sets of synonyma that are distinguished in the Flora 

 Zei/lanica, quotes also for the Noeli Tali the Grossularia Zeylanica baccis mi- 

 noribus acidiusculis of his father {Thes. Zeyl. 112.). Here, like Linneeus, he 

 leaves out the word albis, applied by the elder Burman to the berries of tliis 

 plant : and we may safely reject this quotation ; for Rheede says of the Noeli 

 Tali, " Baccae pulchre rubentes." The A. alexiteria, therefore, as it thus 

 stands, comprehends four species, nor can I say which was really meant. 



M. Lamarck takes his account of the A. alexiteria entirely from Rheede 

 quoting no other authority than the Noeli Tali, nor marking that he had ever 

 seen the plant. He also considers the Antidesma of Burman as quite distinct 

 calling it A. zeylanica. The figure which he gives of the A. alexiteria {III. 

 Gen. t. SVI.f 1.) is taken from Gaertner {De Sem. t. 39.), and is confined 

 entirely to the fruit; but as Gaertner quotes both the Noeli Tali and the 

 Arbor Indica, ovali folio, flosculis plurimis in spicis sumtno ramulo dispositis, 

 acinifera of Plukenet, and as these plants are quite different, it would be dif- 

 ficult to say which he meant. I can only observe, that the fruit figured by 



VOL. XVII. 2 K 



