238 Dr. Francis HaurrToN's Commentary 
and are the D. Metel of Linnæus ; while the Nila Hummatu and 
Mudela Nila Hummatu are his D. fastuosa, the Nux Metella of 
ancient botanists not described by Rumphius ; although I must 
confess that it may be a species not noticed by Linnæus. lf my 
supposition is well founded, a careful revision of the synonyma, 
and more accurate specific characters will be necessary ; and at 
the same time more appropriate specific names should be given ; 
for I think there cannot be a doubt that Linnæus had in view 
the double flowers, when he gave the name fastuosa : but this 
circumstance is common to both species ; and it is surely absurd 
to give the Arabic name Metel to a species different from that 
known to the Arabs. 
Laicu; 4.094 fe. 51: - 
Bex. Ericu, p. 56. no fig. 
Commeline had seen what he took to be these plants growing 
in the gardens of Holland, and this seemingly in the open air : 
for he says, ** procurrunt instar lolii, nisi coerceantur," which 
they would scarcely do in the pots of a stove or greenhouse. One 
other observation which he makes, renders the identity of his: 
plants with those of Malabar more doubtful. He says, ** minime 
accensendæ sunt fruticibus, sed herbis, quia caules et folia 
earum quotannis intereunt:" but the Ericu and Be! Ericu are 
strong shrubs; and, so far as I have observed, carry leaves, 
flower and fruit throughout almost the whole year (hic frutex 
in anno ter flores perfert). From the roots of Commeline's 
plant being able to resist the winters of Holland, it is not likely to 
be a plant of Malabar; but it may possibly be the Beid el Ossar 
of Veslingius, a plant of Syria, which may be an herbaceous 
plant, as Commeline asserts. But then Commeline in his syno- | 
nyma introduces a plant from Egypt, and one from North Ame- 
rica, the latter of which at least there is not any probability of 
3 being 
