on the Malabar Cardamom. 253 
and, as we find that he sailed immediately afterwards to Java, 
it is not an unreasonable conjecture, that he may have sent 
home Bontius’s plant from that island, and that the specimen, 
through some hurry either of the collector himself, or of his 
master, when it arrived. in Sweden, may have been wrongly 
noted as being from India. Be this as it may, it is clear that 
Linnzus has confounded the Javanese Cardamom with that of 
Malabar, having quoted both Bontius and Van Rheede as sy- 
nonyms, and not only tab. 4 and 5 (vol. 11.) of the latter, but 
also tab. 6, which confirms the supposition of his having copied 
Burmann's reference upon trust at that time, for Durmann had 
been guilty of the same error.“ We find Linnzus adding to all 
this inaccuracy, by quoting also Barrclier, 1596, tab. 571, which 
plate is obviously copied from the figure entitled ** Amomo legi- 
timo degli antichi," and prefixed to Marogna's commentary on 
the subject, accompanying Pona's * Monte Baldo descritto." 
'The pharmaceutical synonym (subjoined to the others) of ** Car- 
damomum minus" precludes all doubt of his intending to point 
out the plant which produces the common Cardamom of our 
shops. The Flora Zeylanica, however, is known to have been 
written in haste, and its author discovered some of the mistakes 
into which he had been led, before he published his Species 
Plantarum, because he there discards many of his former re- 
ferences, but amongst these, unfortunately, tab. 4 and 5 of the 
Hortus Malabaricus, retaining only tab. 6. "This last-mentioned 
error is unaccountable, for the very same plate is referred to by 
him for Amomum Granum Paradisi (with which it will probably 
be found to agree very well); and it is curious to observe that 
this gross inaccuracy exists also in his editor Reichard. To com- 
_ plete the confusion of our illustrious author in regard to the 
Cardamom, in his second edition of the Species Plantarum he 
Y OL. X. 2L not 
