OF THE HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE. 32? 
occasioned by a transposition of plates, t. 40. of this vo- 
lume, having been interchanged for the 40th plate of the 
1st volume, which accordingly represents the Radix Dei- 
farcE spuria^ and has been properly quoted by Willde- 
now for the Gmelina asiatica (Sp. PI. iii. 313.), although 
by a wrong name. 
Puzzled by this transposition, Burman, in his explana- 
tion of the plate given in this volume, considers the Radio; 
Deiparas spuria as belonging to no known genus, although 
he himself had noticed the plant (Thes. Zeyl. 197) calUng 
it Prunus Indica sylvestris^ fructu Jlavo pyriformi, De- 
matha Zeylonensihus. Respecting this plant, indeed, he 
was very unfortunate, as he confounded it with the Ta^ii 
of Rheede (Hort. Mai. iv. t. 10.) 
This error was pointed out by Linnaeus (Fl. Zeyl. 230), 
but lie did not recognise the Radix Deipara spuria in the 
Dematha of the Ceylonese, which had been described by 
Amman by the name of Michelia. Linnaeus, however, 
chose to transfer this name to another genus, and gave 
the name Gmelina to the Dematha. At the same time he 
quoted as the same two plants, considered by Plukenet as 
different from each other, the Lycimn Maderaspatanum 
Indici Alpino putati cBmulum Jbliis^ minoribus, bijugis et 
grandioribuSy aculeis horridum (Aim. 234. ; Phyt. t. 97. 
f. 2.), and Idem foliis majoribus (Phyt. t. 305, erroneously 
called 303. by Linnaeus, f. 3.) The latter seems to me 
more like an Ardouina or Carissa than a Gmelina ; and 
the former, if it be a Gmelina^ is rather the G. parvifblia 
of Roxburgh (Hort. Beng. 46), than the Dematha now 
called G. asiatica (Burm. Fl. Ind. 132), provided these 
two species are sufficiently distinct. Nothing, indeed, be 
longing to one genus, can be more different in appearance 
than certain individuals of the two kinds ; but the form 
and size of the leaves, and the growth of the stem, 
