The family of ellipses handled in the quoted passage was chosen specifically to have a simple equation in polar coordinates. Indeed,
from the ratio
we easily get the polar equation
familiar to some of us from a course in celestial mechanics ;-)
Anyway, here the parameters that the user is free to choose are $d$ and $e\in[0,1)$.
The other relevant coefficients: $a,b,h,c$ are then functions of $d$ and $e$,
and cannot be chosen independently. For example, the center of an ellipse
in this family is at the point $C=(h,0)=(-de^2/(1-e^2),0)$. As one of the focal points is fixed at the origin, $F_1=(0,0)$, the other focal point is then
at $F_2=(2h,0)$, i.e. on the negative $x$-axis (assuming $d>0$).
So this family of ellipses does not include any of those with the familiar equation
because the foci of those ellipses are off the origin unless $a=b$. But if $a=b$, then we have a circle, i.e. an ellipse with eccentricity $e=0$. But if $e=0$, equation $(1)$ immediately implies $r=0$, i.e. a circle with radius zero. So the only ellipse of form $(2)$ that is also of form $(1)$ is the degenerate ellipse consisting of a single point.
In other words. Here an ellipse is formed by the loci of the points $P$ with the property that the ratio of their distances from a focal point and from the directrix is a constant. On a circle the distance to a focal point is also a constant, so the distance to the directrix must also be a constant. For this to happen either the circle collapses to a single point, or the directrix is at infinite distance. The latter case can be gotten here by a limiting process: letting $d\to\infty$ in such a way that $de$ remains a constant $R$. Then we must have $e\to0$, and $(1)$ becomes $r=R$ as expected.
Yet in other words. If one of the ellipses under discussion has its center at the origin, then
This implies that either $d=0$ or $e=0$. In either case equation $(1)$ gives $r=0$, i.e. a single point.