230 Dr. Francis HaMrLTON's Commentary 
one and the same with the Frutex indicus bacciferus, Vitis Idee 
secunde Clusii foliis of Breynius. 
Plukenet in his Phytographia (t. 69. f. 3.) delineates a plant, 
which he calls Vitis Idee species Maderaspatana, Niruri forte 
Malabarensibus dicta, Hort. Mal. 2., which would seem to imply 
a doubt of its being the same with the Niruri : but for this doubt 
I see no good reason, the two figures very strongly resembling 
each other. He also in this work quotes Breynius with doubt, 
although in the A/magestum (391.) this is not expressed, as he 
was then probably satisfied of the plants being the same. 
The elder Burman (Thes. Zeyl. 198. t. 88.) describes a plant, 
very like the Niruri, under the name of Rhamnus zeylanicus, folio 
subrotundo, glabro, caulibus hirsutis, spinis exiguis, ad ramorum et 
foliorum ortum exasperatus, flosculo spadiceo, bacca nigra ; but he 
quotes neither the Niruri, the plant of Breynius, nor that of 
Plukenet above mentioned. On the contrary, he quotes, although 
with uncertainty, the Acacie forte cognatus e Maderaspatana 
frutex of Plukenet (Phyt. t. 122. f. 4.), stating, however, that 
as it had neither fruit nor flower, he could not be certain. Bur- 
man adds as synonymous a plant of Sloane, probably from Ja- 
maica. "There is, however, notwithstanding the most striking 
resemblance, an essential difference between the Rhamnus zey- 
lanicus and Niruri: the former has flowers divided into four, 
while those of the latter are divided into five, have probably five 
stamina, and certainly only two styli; but the quinque flavi no- 
duli ad orificium floris, which I have interpreted antherz, may be 
five glandular bodies in a female flower. 
Soon after Linnæus, with his usual contempt for preceding 
authors, chose to give the name Niruri to a plant totally diffe- 
rent from the Niruri of Rheede, and which Rheede had indeed 
described under the name Kirganeli. 
The younger Burman eilled the Rhamnus zeylanicus of his 
father 
