' 298 Dr. Francis Hamilton's Commentary 



aquaticum, Ilicis aculeata folio, floribus ccendeis of the elder Bur- 

 man {Thes. Zeyl. 94.), the Mahalkiri of the Ceylonese, under 

 which name it is mentioned by Linnaeus (F/. Zeyl. 638.), who 

 conjectured that it might be the Paina Schulli. It is admitted 

 by both, that the plant had previously been described by Bon- 

 tius under the name of Myracanthum seu Eryngium indicum. 



Rumphius {Herb. Amb. vi. 163.), although he does not quote 

 Rheede, described shortly the Paina Schulli by the name of 

 Aquifolium indicum mas ; but most of what he says in the chap- 

 ter belongs to another plant called Aquifolium indicum jhnina, 

 of which he gives a figure {t. 71. /• 1.). Yet, on the establish- 

 ment of the species called Acanthus ilicij'olius by Linnaeus, this 

 figure is quoted as if it belonged to the same species with the 

 Paina Schulli, and Aquifolice facie arbor &c. of Plukenet (Burm. 

 Fl. Ind. 138.) ; nor have I it in ray power to say which plant 

 Linneeus meant. 



M. Lamarck, perceiving this error, goes into the contrary 

 , extreme, and does not quote Rumphius at all ; although, as I 

 have said, he no doubt described the Paina Schulli. By this 

 omission, however, of the figure given by Rumphius, we know 

 that the Paina Schulli is the plant meant by M. Lamarck. Ray 

 had called this plant Frutex indicus spinosus,Joliis Agrifolii, sili- 

 qua geminata brevi ; and, after quoting this, Linnaeus had added 

 the plate and figure in the Phytographia of Plukenet, where it is 

 represented without a name ; for it would appear, that Plukenet's 

 account of the plant in the Almagestum always escaped the notice 

 of Linnaeus. By an error very unusual with M. Lamarck, he 

 omits altogether to mention Ray ; but quotes Plukenet's figure 

 under the name which Ray had given to the plant. 



Carambu, 



