322 A COMMENTARY ON THE SECOND BOOK 
CAP. XLV. 
ViDARA LITTOREA, p. 129, t. 37- 
When Burman in his observation on the last chapter, 
corrected some errors, into which he had fallen in the The- 
saurus Zeylanicus, he here fell into still greater. First he 
quotes as the same the Jyjuha indica spinosa folio et Jructii 
longiore of the Thesaurus Zeylamcus, and of Plukenet 
(Aim. 199), which belongs to the Malum Indicum ; and 
next he quotes for it the Prunus Zeylanka^ spinosa^ 
longiore folio viridi, fructus ossiculo orbiculari scrobiculis 
referto of Plukenet (Phyt. t. 216, f. 6), which is no doubt 
a Zizyphus^ but is the Arbor spinosa Zeylanica foliis tr'ibus 
nervis notata of the Thesaurus Zeylanicus (29.) This is 
the real Rhammis Napeca of Linn^us (Willd. Sp. PL i. 
1104), as we learn from the Flora Zeylanica (87) ; although 
subsequent authors, copying Burman, confounded it with 
Plukenefs Jujuha Indica spinosa folio et fructu longiore. 
To complete the error, Willdenow, imitating the younger 
Burman (FL Ind. 60), quotes table 216, f. 6, by this last 
name. This error was first pointed out by M. Lamarck 
(Enc. Me/th. iii. 319), who abandons altogether the Rham- 
nus Napeca of Linnaeus, and describes (p. 320) a Zizyplms 
Napeca, a native of Egypt and Arabia, and called Nabia 
by the older botanists, from whence Linnaeus no doubt de- 
rived the name Napeca. This change leads to confusion, 
as no doubt the Arbor spinosa Zeylanica foliis tribus 
nervis notatd had been called Napeca by Linnaeus, and is 
the only authority quoted in the Flora Zeylanica, although 
it probably is the same with that figured by Plukenet, t. 
216, f. 6. 
