on the Hortiis Malabaricus, Pari II. 237 



NiLA HuMMATU, p. 49- Jig. 29. 



MUDELA NiLA HuMMATU, p. Ol. ^^. 30. 



These evidently belong to the same species of plant, and differ 

 merely in the first having a simple, and the latter a triple flower, 

 to which variation the Hummatu of India and Egyptian TSiiix 

 Metella are also liable, as appears from my commentary on the 

 last plant. 



Commeline does not make any observation on these plants ; 

 but Plukenet entirely coincides with the opinion above stated of 

 the Isila Hummatu and Miidela N. H. being one species, which 

 he calls Stramonia indica fructu oblon go glabra {Mant. 176.). He 

 also proposes as a querj'^, if this be not the same with the Leum 

 Alrachaha (i. e.) Nux Mechil Serapionis of J. Bauhin : but the 

 Nux Mechil of Serapion is probably the same with what our 

 early writers called Nnx Metella ; and this plant should there- 

 fore be the D. fastuosa. It must indeed be observed, that in 

 several points this agrees with the character which Linnseus and 

 other more recent botanists give of the D. fastuosa ; for its calyx 

 is represented without angles, and its fruit without spines. In 

 the figures indeed it appears quite smooth ; but in the descrip- 

 tion it is mentioned " fructus alii glabri, alii gemmulis hinc inde 

 rigidis et valde nitentibus obsiti," which agrees with the pericar- 

 pium tuberculatum of Linnasus. So far is well ; but then in the 

 Nila Hummatu we have pericarpium ovatiim ei-ectum, folia siihin- 

 tegra, while in the D. fastuosa we should have pericarpium globo- 

 sum nutans, folia angulata. Neither is the l^ila Hummatu, nor 

 its double variety, quoted at all by the younger Burman, by 

 Willdenow, by Poiret, by Aiton, nor Roxburgh. We are thus 

 left in uncertainty : but on the whole I am inclined to think, that 

 in reality the Hummatu of Rheede and the three kinds of the 

 Stramonia indica of Rumphius are mere varieties of each other, 



2 I 2 and 



