252 Dr. Maton’s additional Remarks 
however, I ought to mention, that Commelin was guilty of the 
same error before him, referring to Bontius’s Cardamomum minus 
as being the same as Van Rheede’s, in his Horti Malabarici Cata- 
logus, p. 18. ; 
~ From the mistake made by Burmann appear to have originated 
the erroneous description and discordant references given, on 
the subject of the Cardamom, in the works of Linnzus, and 
which have:partly descended to some of his editors. If, in 
writing his Flora Zeylanica, Linnæus had found a specimen of 
the Ensal in Hermann's herbarium, or if he had consulted the 
figures of Van Rheede, the errors, which: commenced with that 
Flora, could not, I think, have existed. That there was not a 
specimen of the Ensal in the herbarium of Hermann, I have ac- 
tually ascertained, having examined that collection on purpose ; 
and that Linnzus had not an opportunity of verifying. Bur- 
mann's references, by consulting the Hortus Malabaricus at the 
same time with the other works quoted by that author, is ren- 
dered highly probable, on account of his not having been: pos- 
sessed of the work, for which he was obliged to send to the 
Academy of Sciences at Stockholm (as I am informed by Mr. 
Dryander) whenever the use of it was indispensable to: him. 
Neither had he any specimen of the true Cardamom in his own 
herbarium, that which he seems to have considered af such 
having a compact spike, though it is labelled as being * from Su- 
rat,” whence he could not have received it until some time after 
the publication of his Flora Zeylanica, and Materia Medica ; for 
he had no correspondent (I imagine) i in that part of: India, prior 
to his pupil Toren’s voyage, in 1750. Toren mentions having 
been at Surat; but it is wonderful enough that he does not enter 
upon any description of so remarkable a plant as the Cardamom, 
which he aw would have dioc; had he seen it growing; 
sand 
