232 Dr. Francis HAam1iLToN’s Commentary 
the Frutex sinensis &c. of Plukenet (Amalth. 100. t. 408. $28.) 
has a better claim. With respect, however, to the Rhamnus zeyla- 
nicus of Burman, it cannot be the Rhamnus lineatus of M. Poiret, 
the flowers of which are divided into five, while those of Bur- 
man’s plant are divided into four. The division in the former 
would agree with the description of the Niruri; and in the figure 
of this both the calyx and corolla in some of the flowers may be 
distinctly observed: but then the Rhamnus lineatus as described 
by M. Poiret has only one stylus, and the figures of the leaves 
in Plukenet's Amaltheum (t. 408. f. 3.) is by no means like the 
Niruri. lt is true, that the Rhamnus lineatus is by Willdenow 
made a Zizyphus, and should therefore have two styli (although he 
places it in the order Monogynia), in which respect it agrees 
with the Niruri; but then there is nothing in the foliage of the 
Niruri like the coste opposite transverse, from whence the Rham- 
nus lineatus derives its name ; nor are its leaves terminated by a 
small spine, but are large and blunt exactly like those of the 
Rhamnus zeylanicus of Burman, which, as M. Poiret observes, 
differ a good deal from those of his Rhamnus lineatus. On the 
whole I am inclined to think, that the Niruri is really a Rham- 
nus ; for although it has two styli, yet its flowers seem to want 
the flat discus of the Zizyphus, and its fruit is evidently a berry 
containing several seeds, and not a drupa containing one nut. 
Several Rhamni, it must be observed, and in particular the cir- 
cumscissus, the nearest plant to the Niruri that I know, have two 
styli. 
HummarTu, p. 47. fig. 28. 
Commeline justly observes, that this and the two following are 
all species of Datura or Stramonium ; but he mentions no cir- 
cumstance, by which we can refer the synonyma of Acosta and 
Clusius, which he quotes, to this species. "That of C. Bauhin 
(Solanum fatidum pomo spinoso oblongo) does not belong to this, 
which 
