328 A COMMENTARY ON THE SECOND BOOK 
differs so much in different individuals, known by culture 
to be of the same species (as may be seen in the specimens 
sent by me to the India-House), that I doubt the pro- 
priety of distinguishing them, unless Dr Roxburgh has 
pointed out some essential difference in the more important 
parts, which I did not notice. One thing certain is, that 
neither is a tree, as Linnaeus asserted. Rumphius says, 
" frutex stipitosus, qui sese sursum explicat in longos et 
flagellosos ramos." M. Lamarck was the first to refer 
the Radix Deipara spuria to the Gmelina asiatica (Enc. 
Meth. ii. 739 ), but he did it in the same erroneous man- 
ner with Willdenow, only he says plainly, that he refers to 
the figure (H. A. i. t. 40) alone, the description of the 
Jamhosa silvestris parvifblia having no resemblance. 
CAP. XLIX. 
Rex AmaroriSj p» 129. t. 41. 
Burman, in his annexed observation, considei'ed this as 
of the same genus with his Ligustrum Jbliis ad singula 
internodia iernis (Thes. Zeyl. 141. t. 64) ; but nothing 
can be more different in appearance, and he seems to have 
been guided entirely by their supposed medical qualities. 
M. Lamarck (Enc. Meth. i. 449) was the first to bring 
this plant into the modern system, calHng it Soulamea 
amara ; but, owing either to the imperfection of his de- 
scription, or to the nature of the plant, Jussieu (Gen. 
Plant. 469) did not reduce it to any of his natural orders. 
M. Poiret (Enc. Meth. Sup. v. 191), however, places it 
among the Polygaleos^ in which he is followed by Decan- 
dolle (Prodr. i. 335), although it seems almost certain that 
it, does not possess the characters by which the latter de- 
fines this order. . 
