250 Dr. Francis Hamitton’s Commentary 
nacoe and Pandi Avanacu into one species, including both the 
American and African varieties. 
Rumphius admirably describes the Cit Avanacu under the 
name of Ricinus albus (Herb. Amb. iv. 90.), noticing a double 
variety domesticus et sylvestris, of which the former has a tinge of 
red, while the latter is entirely pale. He also describes the 
Pandi Avanacu under the name of Ricinus ruber (l. c. 97. t. 41.), 
and considers them as distinct. 
Linnæus, when he published the Flora Zeylanica, seemed to 
be of the same opinion; for he mentions only one species of 
Ricinus (339.), and quotes for it the Cit Avanacu alone. He 
justly considers it as the Ricinus vulgaris of C. Bauhin, which 
Plukenet and the elder Burman had rejected. 
The younger Burman (Fl. Ind.306.), following Linnæus, calls 
this species of the Flora Zeylanica, Ricinus communis, thus need- 
lessly changing the name given by C. Bauhin ; for Linnæus, it 
must be confessed, amidst many great qualities, was an insatiable 
innovator. Burman justly considers the Ricinus albus and ruber 
of Rumphius as the same; but quotes only the Cit Avanucu, 
although there cannot be a doubt that the Ricinus ruber and 
Pandi Avanacuare precisely the same. Finally, he quotes none 
of the authors who call the plant either African or American. 
M. Poiret (Enc. Meth. vi. 201.) gives at great length the syn- 
onyma of the Ricinus communis, and I believe with great judge- 
ment, including in this species the Ricinus albus and ruber of 
-= Rumphius as well as the Avanacu of Rheede, by which he no 
doubt meant the Cit Avanacu. He considers the Ricinus ruber 
and the African plant as belonging to the same variety, and does 
not quote the Pandi Avanacu, probably because Rheede gives no 
figure. | 
Willdenow soon after (Sp. PI. iv. 564.) endeavours to divide 
the species of M. Poiret into four distinct species, adding a fifth 
from 
