23S Dr. Francis Hamilton's Commentary 



and are the D. Metel of Linnaeus ; while the M/a Hummatu and 

 Mudela Nila Hummatu are his D. fastuosa, the Nux Metella of 

 ancient botanists not described by Rumphius ; although I must 

 confess that it may be a species not noticed by Linnaeus. If my 

 supposition is well founded, a careful revision of the synonyma, 

 and more accurate specific characters will be necessary ; and at 

 the same time more appropriate specific names should be given ; 

 for I think there cannot be a doubt that Linna3us had in view 

 the double flowers, when he gave the name fastuosa : but this 

 circumstance is common to both species ; and it is surely absurd 

 to give the Arabic name Metel to a species different from that 

 known to the Arabs. 



Ericu, p. 53. Jig. 31. 

 Bel Ericu, p. 56. no Jig. 



Commeline had seen what he took to be these plants growing 

 in the gardens of Holland, and this seemingly in the open air ; 

 for he says, " procurrunt instar lolii, nisi coerceantur," which 

 they would scarcely do in the pots of a stove or greenhouse. One 

 other observation which he makes, renders the identity of his 

 plants with those of Malabar more doubtful. He says, " minime 

 accensendae sunt fruticibus, sed herbis, quia caules et folia 

 earum quotannis intereunt :" but the Ericu and Bel Ericu are 

 strong shrubs; and, so far as I have observed, carry leaves, 

 flower and fruit throughout almost the whole year (hie frutex 

 in anno ter flores perfert). From the roots of Commeline's 

 plant being able to resist the winters of Holland, it is not likel}^ to 

 be a plant of Malabar ; but it may possibly be the Beid el Ossar 

 of Veslingius, a plant of Syria, which may be an herbaceous 

 plant, as Commeline asserts. But then Commeline in his syno- 

 nyma introduces a plant from Egypt, and one from North Ame- 

 rica, the latter of which at least there is not any probability of 



being 



