OF THE HEllBAKIUM AMBOINENSE. 325 
for the Strychnos Coluhrina ; but Willdenow erred still 
farther, in quoting for this the Lignum Colubrinum of 
Rumphius, for both these Canirams are climbing plants, 
and Rheede calls the Modira Caniram, which is no doubt 
that meant by Linnaeus, an herb ; but Rumphius says of 
his Lignum Colubrinum, " arbor hsec vulgo altitudinem et 
crassitiem habet Limonii Nipis, in quibusdam vero locis 
instar Limonii Itam, quae truncum gerit nempe crassitie 
hominis, vulgares vero non ultra crus sunt crass^. Rami 
in minores et tirmos dividuntur laterales ramulos."" This 
clearly shows, that the Lignum Colubrinum is totally dif- 
ferent from the Strychnos colubrina, although Poiret con- 
tinues to quote it with doubt (Enc. Meth. viii. 695. The 
only doubt seems to be, whether or not it be a Strychnos, 
Its great bitterness, its opposite leaves with three longitudi- 
nal nerves, and the description of the fruit, lead to the 
supposition of its being a Strychnos ; but the figure of the 
seed, consisting of two cotyledones without an albumen, 
contradict this opinion. I have however already said, that 
the figure seems to represent some other plant ; and we may 
therefore conclude, that the Lignum colubrinum of Rum- 
phius and the Nux vomica major of Herman are the same 
tree, not yet introduced into the botanical system. 
Akar Lussa Radja, p. 123. Actuar. p. 27. 
Akar Lussa Radja crassior, p. 123. 
These may be of the same genus with tlie Lignum coht- 
brinum, or perhaps one of them may be the plant repre- 
sented in Plate 38 ? 
