OF THE HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE. 331 
consider as the same. Since writing that Commentary, 1 
have procured the Prodromus of M. Decandolle, and ob- 
serve, that although many of my opinions respecting the 
Poerinsii coincide with his ; yet that he thinks the Sapo- 
naria of Rumphius different, and calls it Sapijidus Rarak 
(Prodr. i. 608), distinguishing them by the Rarak having 
from ten to twelve pair of pinnse in each leaf, while the S, 
laurifolius has only three pair. I have some doubt how 
far we can rely on this point, the number of pinnse being 
liable to great variation in different parts of the same indi- 
vidual, and in the same individual at different ages : thus, 
Rumphius says, that in young plants the leaves have 
twelve or more pairs of pinnse, while old plants have only 
eight or ten ; and I have mentioned in the Commentary 
already cited, that the leaves of the Poerinsii adjoining 
to the flowers, are only ternate. I have not, however, 
taken any note concerning the number of leaflets in parts of 
the tree at a distance from the flowers, or in young plants. 
CAP. LII. 
Pharmacum Sagueri legitimum, p. 136. t. 44. 
Pharmacum Sagueri limonicum, p. 137- t. 44. f. B. 
These seem evidently plants of the same genus ; nor is it 
clear, indeed, from what Rumphius says, that they are dif- 
ferent species, although, as neither is cultivated, and as 
they possess different qualities, there is probably in some 
of their parts an essential difference, which escaped the no- 
tice of Rumphius. 
So far as was known to M. Poiret (Enc. Meth. v. 258) 
no botanist since the time of Rumphius, has noticed these 
trees, nor have I any knowledge of them. M. Poiret, I 
have no doubt, mistakes the meaning of Rumphius con- 
