244 Dr. Francis Hamilton's Commentary 



Gsertner has no great resemblance to that of the Berheris, while Rheede says, 

 " Baccce eylindraceae — Berberis fructibus persiniiles." We may therefore con- 

 clude that Gsertner has not delineated the fruit of the Noeli Tall, and that 

 therefore his ^. alexiteria is different from that of Lamarck, whose account is 

 taken entirely from Rheede. 



M. Lamarck thinks that Rheede described merely a female tree of the Noeli 

 Tali, and, therefore, that the three stamina which he mentions are in reality 

 styli. This would obviate one objection to the N^oeli Tali being the ^7. alexi- 

 teria ; but as several Antidesmas have three stamina, this remains very doubt- 

 ful, especially as Burman in his Antidesma, so nearly allied to the Noeli Tali, 

 describes the flowers, "stamina habentes tria calyce longiora, apicibus ex duo- 

 bus veluti globules compositis," which evidently alludes to real stamina, and 

 not to styli, although he says, " post flores BaccK sequuntur Berberi dumeto- 

 rum similes," just as Rheede, after describing the stamina of his plant, says, 

 " flosculis succedunt baccse." Any one may indeed be satisfied that the figure 

 of Burman represents a male, while that of Rheede represents a female ; but 

 then, in the two separate flowers which the latter gives, the three stamina with 

 their antherse are evidently delineated quite differently from the female flowers 

 on the spikes. We may therefore, I think, conjecture, that the A. alexiteria of 

 M. Lamarck is the Noeli Tali, and not that of Gsertner. 



This unlucky plant has led Willdenow into worse mistakes than any yet 

 mentioned, as he quotes it both for his Stilago Buniits (^Sp. PI. iv. 71-1.) and 

 Antidesma alexiteria {Sp. PL iv. 762.). The genus Stilago, first founded by the 

 younger Burman (Fl. Ind. 16.), and for which he quoted the Bunius sativus of 

 Rumphius {Herb. Amb. iii. 204. t. 131.), has hermaphrodite flowers; and I 

 know a plant that entirely agrees with the character which he gives ; but this 

 is totally diflferent from that given by Willdenow from Schreber ; and I know 

 that Dr. Roxburgh considered his Stilago Bunius and S. diandra as not really 

 distinct from the Antidesmas, as differing merely in the number of stamina ; 

 and M. Poiret is of a similar opinion {Enc. MM. Suppl. i. 403.). The fruit 

 in both is in fact a drupa. Whether or not Burman was right in quoting 

 Rumphius for his Stilago, I shall not here inquire. It suffices to state here 

 that the plant of Rumphius, having leaves agreeably acid, cannot be the Noeli 

 Tali, of which the leaves are insipid. If, therefore, the Bunius sativus of 



