270 Dr. Francis Hamizron’s Commentary 
first sight, being a large bushy shrub, is easily distinguished ; 
but, on a closer examination, the structure of all the parts is so 
nearly alike, that I am not sure of their being different species. 
Specimens of both have been deposited in the Collection of the 
East India Company. 
Carru GasrTuRi, p.71. fig. 38. 
.Commeline considers this as the same with a plant brought 
first to Europe from Egypt, where it is called 4b el Mosch; and 
in this he is probably right; but more doubt might have been 
entertained concerning the Herba Moschata of the West Indies, 
unless it had appeared that the plant was not a native of that 
country, but had been introduced from Africa (Herb. Amb. iv. 
39.). 
Plukenet, (Alm. 14.) however, without hesitation joins both 
the Egyptian and American plant to the Cattu Gasturi, under 
the name of Alcea /Egyptiaca villosa, borrowed from C. Bauhin, 
adding to the list given by Commeline some more recent au- 
thorities. : - 
. Rumphius (Herb. Amb. iv. 38. t. 15.) as usual gives an ex- 
cellent account of this plant under the name of Granum mos- 
chatum, and accounts for its appearance in America as above 
stated. ; 
Bauhin's generic name 4/cea had been changed by Tourne- 
fort into Ketmia ; and the elder Burman, following his example, 
calls it Ketmia Ægyptiaca, semine moschato (Thes. Zeyl.134.), men- 
tioning that Ammannus considered the Egyptian kind as dif- 
ferent from the Indian. If this supposition is well founded, no 
other person than Rheede and Rumphius has described the plant 
in question, all the synonyma quoted by Commeline, Plukenet, 
Rumphius, and Burman, belonging to the plant of Africa, or at 
least 
