340 
COMMENTARY ON 
dica fructii nigro (Burm. Thes. Zeyl. 197), the Jamhulo- 
nes (C. B. P. 466), the Jamholous (Acost. Aromat. 209), 
and the Madan (Herm. Mus. Zeyl. 8)^ are really the plant 
(Fl. Zeyl. 185) which Linnseus afterwards called Myrtus 
Cumini. As the generic name Jambolifera, and the specific 
name Cumini, are thus totally founded in error, Gaertner 
lias done perfectly right in changing the former to Cymi- 
nosma (De Sem. i. 280, t. 58, f. 6) ; and Willdenow should 
have transferred all the synonyma, given by mistake in the 
Flora Zeylanica, to the Calyptranthes Jambolana, which, 
without any doubt, is the same plant with the Myrtus Cu- 
mini. An unfortunate error, however, in the younger 
Burman, has led Willdenow into still greater mistakes. 
The former quoted, as synonymous with the Myrtus Cw- 
mini, the Jambosa ceramica^ of which I am now treating ; 
and the latter, joining this with some of the synonyma 
which Linneeus by mistake had given to the Jambolifera 
or Cyminosma, made it into a species, which he called 
Calyptranthes caryophyUifolia, a name which he borrowed 
from a mistake in the Encyclopedic. In this valuable work 
(iii. 198), the Perin Niara of the Hortus Malabaricus (v. 
57, t. 29) is considered as different from the Jambolana 
described by Rumphius in the next chapter, because the 
painter of the latter, in attempting awkwardly to represent 
the leaves in proper perspective with their points bending 
a little backward, " folia rotundo terminantia cum brevi 
apice, qu^ deorsum inflectitur,"'*' has represented them as 
deeply emarginated ; but, on a careful examination of the 
descriptions of both authors, with a tree most perfectly 
known to me, I have not the smallest doubt that the Perin 
Niara and Jambolana are quite the same, and that Will- 
denow is wrong in referring the Jambosa ceram'ica to this 
species. In the Encyclopedic, it is considered, with some 
doubt, as belonging to the Eugenia cymosa of that work 
