on the Hortus Malabaricus, Part II. 237 
Nita Hummaru, p.49. fig. 29. 
Mupeta Nita HuMMATU, p. 51. fig. 30. 
These evidently belong to the same species of plant, and differ 
merely in the first having a simple, and the latter a triple flower, 
to which variation the Hummatu of India and Egyptian Nur 
Metelia are also liable, as appears from my commentary on the 
last plant. 
Commeline does not make any observation on these plants ; 
but Plukenet entirely coincides with the opinion above stated of 
the Nila Hummatu and Mudela N. H. being one species, which 
he calls Stramonia indica fructu oblongo glabro (Mant. 176.). He 
also proposes as a query, if this be not the same with the Leum 
Alrachaha (i. e.) Nux Mechil Serapionis of J. Bauhin: but the 
Nux Mechil of Serapion is probably the same with what our 
early writers called Nur Metella; and this plant should there- 
fore be the D. fastuosa. It must indeed be observed, that in 
several points this agrees with the character which Linnæus and 
other more recent botanists give of the D. fastuosa; for its calyx 
is represented without angles, and its fruit without spines. In 
the figures indeed it appears quite smooth; but in the descrip- 
tion it is mentioned * fructus alii glabri, alii gemmulis hinc inde 
rigidis et valde nitentibus obsiti," which agrees with the pericar- 
pium tuberculatum of Linnæus. So far is well; but then in the 
Nila Hummatu we have pericarpium ovatum erectum, folia subin- 
tegra, while in the D. fastuosa we should have pericarpium globo- 
sum nutans, folia angulata. Neither is the Nila Hummatu, nor 
its double variety, quoted at all by the younger Burman, by 
Willdenow, by Poiret, by Aiton, nor Roxburgh. We are thus 
_ left in uncertainty : but on the whole I am inclined to think, that 
in reality the Hummatu of Rheede and the three kinds of the 
Stramonia indica of Rumphius are mere varieties of each other, 
212 and 
