236 Dr. Francis HauirToN's Commentary 
remove the difficulties above stated. The same is the case, with 
what is said in the Hortus Kewensis (1. 387.), where the Hum- 
matu is the only authority quoted forthe D. Metel, with Willde- 
now’s inapplicable specific character. As however Linnzus, Will- 
denow, Poiret, and the author of the Hortus Kewensis had the 
living plants before them, we cannot doubt of there being two 
distinct species: but then the Hummatu is not the D. Metel 
calyce terete; nor the Dutra rubra the D. fasiuosa pericarpio 
tuberculato vel levi. On the whole, I am persuaded that the 
D. alba nigra et rubra of Rumphius are mere varieties of the 
same species, and not different from the Hummatu ; for although 
in one of his figures the calyx is concealed by a leaf, so that its 
angles cannot be seen, yet both have spines on the capsules. I 
must leave to those who have an opportunity of seeing the 
Egyptian plant, to determine the difference between it and the 
Hummatu in a manner more satisfactory than has been yet done. 
Dr. Roxburgh (Hort. Beng. 16.) had both a Datura fastuosa 
and a D. Metel; and at one time at least, I know, considered 
them as mere varieties ; but it is possible that he may have after- 
wards found another species, the Dhutura of the natives, and 
called it Metel; while what the natives call Kala (black) Dhu- 
tura, the Dutra nigra of Rumphius, he received as the D. fas- 
tuosa with both single and double flowers. In the western pro- 
vinces of Gangetic India I have indeed found a plant called 
simply Dhutura or Dutra, abundantly different from the Kala 
Dhutura, the Hummatu, and all the varieties of the Stramonia 
indica of Rumphius ; and this may be the plant which Dr. Rox- 
burgh latterly called D. Metel, although it more resembles the 
Linnean character of the D. Stramonium than that of the Metel, 
and has much smaller flowers than the latter. Specimens of this 
will be found in the coilection which I have presented to the 
East India Company. 
NILA 
