580 
BXedapa a generic name. If you look into your 
Dioscorides, you will see a marginal reading taken 
from another copy, Nov@ap, Nuphar. That would 
come nearer to a true generic name. If you wish 
to examine more deeply into this name, turn to 
your Theophrastus and read the explanation. This 
is amply detailed by Bodeus, p. 1103, and continues 
to half of the second column on p. 1104. See 
particularly the bottom of p. 1103, where he tells 
you that voupap is a Mauritanic, or modern Greek 
word. Novdap makes a medicine, voudapov. So that 
that very circumstance favours the idea of making 
Nuphar a generic name. But go back to Theo- 
phrastus himself, and you will see that he brings 
forward another name for it, wadwua. Perhaps such 
a termination of a word may seem suitable to the 
purpose; see p. 1093 (last line but two), where he 
says it is a Boeotian name. As you profess to be 
bound to Dioscorides, I declare I should prefer u- 
phar, and should suppose it a feminine noun, and 
make the species ranged under it, /utea, &c., &c. 
Madonia is formed from padwv, calvus, bald, having 
no hairs upon it. Observe towards the end of 
p. 1103, how it is said, nadwy roa kat Aewov, a glabritie 
caulium et foliorum, &c.—dewe is levis. Either 
of these names Wuphar or Madonza is highly clas- 
sical. I scarcely know which is best: perhaps 
Madonia is; but Nuphar is Dioscorides’s. You 
must, and you do reject Salisbury’s Castalia here 
upon irrefragable grounds. In your Introduction, 
you have pledged yourself, not to the name Casta- 
fia, but merely to the separation from Mymphea. 
