254 Dr. Francis Hamizron’s Commentary 
work, they were known in the shops by the name of Cataputia 
minor ; although they were sold by itinerants under the name 
Grana Dilla ox Grana Tilli, which latter name by the time of 
Plukenet had in a great measure prevailed, as the Cadel Ava- 
nacu was by him called Ricinus orientalis cujus fructus sunt Pinei 
nuclei Molucani a nobis putati et Grana Tilli officinarum ( Alm. 320. : 
Mant. 162.). 
The elder Burman quotes the Cadel Avanacu for his Ricinoi- 
des Indica, folio lucido, fructu glabro, and (Thes. Zeyl. 200.) 
gives us the synonyma of preceding authors at great length, and 
with more care than he usually bestowed on the subject. The 
seeds then were called Grana T?2lia ; and it had been discovered 
that the older botanists had described the seeds by one name, 
taking them for the production of a Pine, while the plant pro- 
ducing the seed, without this circumstance having been known, 
was described by the name of Lignum Moluccense or Pavana. 
The figure which Burman gives (t. 90.) represents the leaves as 
having three nerves meeting at their base; but in the figure of 
Rheede there are five nerves. We have no account of the flower 
from the latter; but Burman says, “ flores masculini calycem 
nullum habent, petala octo, stamina sedecim." He also says, 
* Frutex hic caules gerit simplices, qui nascuntur sine ramis 
lateralibus, apice flores in spicam longam collectos gerentes—ad 
radicem spicæ duo rami egrediuntur ejusdem structure cum 
caule, et sic continuatur secundum etates.” ‘This implies, that 
the plant which he described had in Linnæan language caulem 
fruticosum dichotomum, e ramorum divaricatione fructiferum, which 
is by no means applicable to the figure of Rheede. These cir- 
cumstances will perhaps render it doubtful whether the plant, 
which Burman described and figured, was actually the same with 
the Cadel Avanacu, although Rheede agrees with Burman in 
calling his plant a shrub (frute2), not very reconcileable with 
7 the 
