on the Hortus Malaharicus, Part III. 127 



marginem crenatis,fructu conoide quinqiiecopsidari, lanugine leuco- 

 phœâ referto {Aim. 172. Plujt. t. 189./. 1.) ; but this is evidently 

 an error, the leaflets of the American plant being toothed on the 

 edges, while in the Indian plant they are quite entire. Rum- 

 phius and his commentator Burman, as I have said, seem 

 strangely to have considered the Pania and Moid Elavou as the 

 same plant, but evidently described only the former. Linnteus 

 (F/. Zeyl. 221.) united a plant of America with the Moid Elavou; 

 but he does not quote Plukenet ; and therefore his plant, which 

 was then common in the gardens of Europe, might have the 

 edges of the leaflets entire. This plant of Linnseus in the first 

 edition of the Species Plantar urn became Bombax Ceiba (Burm. 

 Fl. Ind. 145.). In the second edition, however, the Moid Ela- 

 vou having been found difterent from the American Ceiba de- 

 scribed by Bauhin and Sloane, it was called Bombax heptap/n/l- 

 lum, and new synonyma were given. Among these was still an 

 American plant described by Jacquin ; and the Gossypium s. 

 Xylon arbor orientale digitatis folds lcevibus,friictu quinquecapsu- 

 lari, alba et nitente lanugine farcto {Pluk. Aim. 172. t. 188./". 4.), 

 which, although said to be an Asiatic plant, cannot well, on 

 account of its stamina, be considered as representing the JSIoid 

 Elavou. I suspect, however, that Plukenet was mistaken con- 

 cerning the country from which he obtained his plant, for I have 

 seen none such in India ; and his figure is quoted by all for the tree 

 of the West Indies. Besides, as Cavanilles observes {Enc. Mef/t. 

 ii. 553.), Linna?us describes the plant as having a monopetalous 

 corolla, while that of the Moul Elavou has five petals ; and it is 

 therefore probable that the plants are different. AVilldenow, 

 although he quotes the Hortus Malabaricus, probably meant 

 some other plant, as he calls it an American : and in the figure 

 of Plukenet, which he also quotes, there is no appearance of 

 prickles in even the branch. Further, as in the Hortus Kew- 



ensis 



