204 Dr. Francis Hamilton's Commentary 



Burman did not improve matters by calling it a Cerams {Thes. 

 Zeyl. 57.); for, although Burman does not quote the Modern 

 Canni, they probably meant the same plant, as Linnaeus sup- 

 posed {FL Zeyl. 249.)- It must be observed, however, that the 

 specimens of Plermann, which Linnaeus examined, had only three 

 styli, whereas Rheede evidently describes five ; and his figure 

 represents the sexual parts as entirely hid by the corolla, while 

 Linnaeus represents the united filaments as being as long as that 

 covering. 



The younger Burman, adopting the Linnaean name Hugonia 

 Mystax, adds from the Herbarium of Petiver, l^ux vomica made- 

 raspatana minima, spinis corniculatis ; which shows that Petiver 

 fell into the same mistake with Commeline. What is of more 

 importance, Burman remarks a difference in the three speci- 

 mens, which he had seen, that from Java differing from that of 

 Ceylon, while both ditfered from the specimen of Petiver. He 

 gives us, however, no means of judging which he considered as 

 the Modera Canni. 



It must be remarked, that Linnaeus and the younger Burman 

 quote Ray, as describing the plant under two names, and 

 M. Lamarck {Enc. Meth. iii. 149.) does the same ; yet no two of 

 these authors agree concerning the names given by Ray to this 

 plant. In the elder Burman, who quotes only one name of Ray, 

 and in one of Ray's names quoted by M. Lamarck, he is made 

 to compare the Modera Canni with the Cerasus; but in the 

 younger Burman he distinguishes it by two distinct generic 

 names, JEgoceratos and Mystax, both of which by Linnaeus are 

 thrown into the back ground, and the latter by M. Lamarck is 

 entirely left out. It must further be remarked, that although 

 M. Lamarck justly distinguishes the Hugonia Mystax of I-.in- 

 naeus, or Modera Canni, from the H. Mystax of Cavanilles, 

 which the French botanist therefore calls H. serrata; yet in the 



Supplement 



