OF THE HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE. 
CAP. XXIII. 
SiNDOC, p. 69. 
In the commentary on the Carua (Lin. Trans, xiii. 553). 
I have noticed, that the younger Burman considered the 
Sindoc as the Katou Kama (Hort. Mai. v. t. 53), and have 
there stated all that I know of the subject. 
CAP. XXIV. 
LaURASTBR AmBOINENSIS maxima, ) 13 >7() t 15 
MINOR, ^ ' 
It is impossible to say with certainty which of these 
plants the figure is intended to represent. It, no doubt, 
represents the flower, and Rumphius describes only the 
flower of the lesser kind ; and it might be therefore sup- 
posed that the figure belongs to this ; but then the size of 
the fruit suits the larger kind, and the flower is represented 
as divided into five, while, in the description of the flower 
of the smaller kind, it is said to be divided into two. If 
we could depend on these circumstances, the two plants 
should belong to different genera, and the figure should 
represent the largest kind, which may be of the same genus 
with the Katou Kama (Hort. Mai. v. t. 53), the flowers of 
which are divided into five. 
Cortex igneus, p. 71. 
Rumphius classes this with the two preceding plants, 
which are so ill defined, and he never saw any part but the 
bark. We know nothing whatever, therefore, of its botani- 
cal affinities. 
3 
