270 A COMMENTAHY ON THE SECOND BOOK 
CAP. III. 
Caryophyllum regium, p. 10, t. 2. 
Kumphius seems perfectly correct in considering this as 
a mere accidental variety, and not a different species. Ac- 
cordingly M.Lamarck (Enc. Meth. ii. 712) calls it Caryo- 
pJiylliis aromaticus /3 ; and various authors, who have treat- 
ed of it, are mentioned by Burman in his observation. 
CAP. IV. 
Caryophyllum silvestre, p. 12, t. 3. 
Burman, in the annexed observation, is totally wrong in 
referring this to the Caryophyllus languescente vi aroma- 
tia/s, MalaharicuSy folio et fructu majori of Plukenet 
(Phyt. t. S74, f. S), which is the Jambolana of Rumphius 
(H. A. i. 181) ; while the Caryophyllum silvestre, from the 
form of the calyx, evidently belongs to the genus Caryo- 
yliyllus ; and from its inflorescence seems a distinct species, 
not noticed by late authors. 
CAR V, VI, VII. 
Nux Myristica, p. 14, t. 4. 
Rumphius here describes not only the most perfect and 
common nutmeg tree, which he calls Nucc Myjistica foemi- 
na ; but also several varieties, namely, N. M. mas, N. M. 
Pala Bacambar, N, M, Pala KendeJcende, N. M. Pents- 
joere, N. M. Pala Radjia, N. M. Pala Hollanda, and N, 
M. Pala Domlne. The male and female plants of Rum- 
phius are not, as M. Lamarck justly remarks (Enc. Meth. 
