3021 A COMMENTARY ON THE SECOND BOOK 
deros saligna (Lin. Trans, iii. he mentions as fol- 
lows : " Rumphius, tab. 17. f. 2. vol. ii. has some resem- 
blance to this plant, but he describes his as very aromatic, 
which ours is not at all." But the aromatic plant described 
by Rumphius is that which Burman and Desrousseaux 
consider as represented in Fig. 1. While I am fully sen- 
sible of the great general accuracy of my friend Sir James, 
I must acknowledge that in this point he seems to be 
wrong ; for the account of the leaves of the Arbor alba mi- 
nor by Rumphius (" folia prioris," Arboris albcE iiempe 
mqjorls, " sunt similia, sed dimidio minora, tres quatuorve 
poUices longa, vix minorem digitum lata,'') is more appli- 
cable to Fig. 1. than to Fig. 2. On these grounds we may 
perhaps be allowed to conclude, that the Daun Katsjil 
(t. 17. f. 1.) described by Rumphius, is a species of Mela- 
leuca not yet introduced into the system, but which may 
be called M, trinerms ; while the Daim Poeti Kitsjil 
(t. 17. f. 2.) is the Metrosideros saligna^ not described in 
Herbarium Amboinense. 
CAP. XXVII. 
Myrtus Amboinensis, p. 77- t. 18. 
Burman, in the explanation of the plate, calls this Myr- 
tus Amboinensis montana, for which latter phrase I see no 
authority in the text. M. Lamarck (Enc. Meth. iii. 467.) 
states, that this is certainly a species of Leptospermim, 
very nearly allied to his L. salicifoUum ; but mentions, as 
a distinguishing mark, the difference in the inflorescence, 
which in my opinion is quite sufficient. He also pointed 
out the affinity of his L. salic'ifolimn to the Melaleuca vir- 
gata of the younger Linnaeus ; but observed that the one 
had terminal, and the other axillary umbels. 
3 
