204 Dr. Francis HaMiLTron’s Commentary 
Burman did not improve matters by calling it a Cerasus (Thes. 
Zeyl. 57.); for, although Burman does not quote the Modera 
Canni, they probably meant the same plant, as Linnæus sup- 
posed (Fl. Zeyl. 249.). It must be observed, however, that the 
specimens of Hermann, which Linnæus examined, had only three 
styli, whereas Rheede evidently describes five; and his figure 
represents the sexual parts as entirely hid by the corolla, while 
Linnæus represents the united filaments as being as long as that 
covering. 
The younger Burman, adopting the Linnzan name Hugonia 
Mystax, adds from the Herbarium of Petiver, Nux vomica made- 
raspatana minima, spinis corniculatis ; which shows that Petiver 
fell into the same mistake with Commeline. What is of more 
importance, Durman remarks a difference in the three speci- 
mens, which he had seen, that from Java differing from that of 
Ceylon, while both ditfered from the specimen of Petiver. He 
gives us, however, no means of judging which he considered as 
the Modera Canni. 
It must be remarked, that Linnæus and the younger Burman 
quote Ray, as describing the plant under two names, and 
M. Lamarck (Enc. Meth. iii. 149.) does the same ; yet no two of 
these authors agree concerning the names given by Ray to this 
plant. Inthe elder Burman, who quotes only one name of Ray, 
and in one of Ray's names quoted by M. Lamarck, he is made 
to compare the Modera Canni with the Cerasus; but in the 
younger Burman he distinguishes it by two distinct generic 
names, Ægoceratos and Mystax, both of which by Linnæus are 
thrown into the back ground, and the latter by M. Lamarck is 
entirely left out. It must further be remarked, that although 
M. Lamarck justly distinguishes the Hugonia Mystaa of Lin- 
næus, or Modera Canni, from the H. Mystax of Cavanilles, 
which the French botanist therefore calls H. serrata; yet in the 
Supplement 
