208 Dr. Francis HauirTON's Commentary 
aquaticum, Ilicis aculeatæ folio, floribus ceruleis of the elder Bur- 
man (Thes. Zeyl. 94.), the Mahalkiri of the Ceylonese, under 
which name it is mentioned by Linnæus (Fl. Zeyl. 638.), who 
conjectured that it might be the Paina Schulli. It is admitted 
by both, that the plant had previously been described by Bon- 
tius under the name of Myracanthum seu Eryngium indicum. 
Rumphius (Herb. Amb. vi. 163.), although he does not quote 
Rheede, described shortly the Paina Schulh by the name of 
Aquifolium indicum mas ; but most of what he says in the chap- 
ter belongs to another plant called Aquifolium indicum femina, 
of which he gives a figure (4.71. f. 1.). Yet, on the establish- 
ment of the species called Acanthus ilicifolius by Linnzus, this 
figure is quoted as if it belonged to the same species with the 
Paina Schulli, and Aquifolie facie arbor &c. of Plukenet (Burm. 
Fl. Ind. 138.) ; nor have I it in my power to say which plant 
Linnæus meant. 
M. Lamarck, perceiving this error, goes into the contrary 
extreme, and does not quote Rumphius at all; although, as I 
have said, he no doubt described the Paina Schulli. By this 
omission, however, of the figure given by Rumphius, we know 
that the Paina Schulli is the plant meant by M. Lamarck. Ray 
had called this plant Frutex indicus spinosus, foliis Agrifolii, sili- 
qua geminata brevi ; and, after quoting this, Linnæus had added 
the plate and figure in the Phytographia of Plukenet, where it is 
represented without a name; for it would appear, that Plukenet's 
account of the plant in the Almagestum always escaped the notice 
of Linnzus. By an error very unusual with M. Lamarck, he 
omits altogether to mention Ray ; but quotes Plukenet's figure 
under the name which Ray had given to the plant. 
CARAM BU, 
