3^4 A COMMENTAllY ON THE SECOND BOOK 
spines are scattered over the whole surface, nor is there any 
appearance of a terminal point like the remains of the stylus. 
Finally the description says, " ramuli sine ullis spinis uti et 
tota arbor mitis est but in the figure there are spines in 
the forks of the smaller branches. 
The next circumstance to be observed is, that Rum- 
phius declares his plant to be quite different from three 
kinds of Lignum Coluhrinum growing in Ceylon, from 
three kinds described by Christ, a Costa, and from some 
others described by Clusius, all of which farther are dif- 
ferent from each other. Burman in the annexed observa- 
tion, in a great measure^ confirms this opinion ; and after 
enumerating many plants, to which the name Lignum 
Colubrinum has been applied, and among others the Ca- 
niram of Rheede (Hort. Mai. i. t. 37), he considers, that 
the Nucc vomica major ojfficinarum of Herman in his Materia 
Medica, is the produce of the same tree with that here de- 
scribed by Rumphius. Notwithstanding this, he quotes the 
Nuoc vomica major of Paradisi Batavi Prodromus as be- 
ing the same with the Caniram, and with the Modira 
Caniram (Hort. Mai. viii, t. 24). The Prodromus Para- 
disi Batavi, according to Linnaeus (Flor. Zeyl.), is only sup- 
posed to be the work of Herman, and therefore the Nux 
vomica major et qfflcinarum of this work, and of Herman's 
Materia Medica, may be different ; so that Burman may be 
right in both cases ; but little dependence can be placed on 
his accuracy, as, in the Thesaurus Zeylanicus, as above 
mentioned, he quotes the Modira Caniram, as the same 
with the Caniram, the one a large tree, and the other a 
climbing plant. 
In treating of the Tsjeru Katu Valli Caniram (Hort. 
Mai. vii. 10. t. 15.), and Modira Caniram (Ibid. viii. t. 
£4), I have pointed out an error in Willdenow and Poiret, 
in quoting the figure of the first, under the latter name. 
