368 
COMMENTAIIY ON 
Caput LXIIL 
Momiiga mas, p. 184, t. 74. 
Morunga femiiia, p. 184, t. 75. 
Some confusion here exists in the account of Rumphius ; 
for he says, " Flores maris omnes pereunt, nec fructus re- 
linquunt ; feminae autem flores excrescunt in ingentem si- 
liquam from which we ought to infer, that the tree is 
dioicious : but in the plates both male and female are re- 
presented as producing fruit ; and besides, from their leaves, 
the plants so called would appear to be different species, 
although in the description no notice is taken of this differ- 
ence. 
The older botanists noticed only one kind of Morunga, 
as is especially the case with Rheede (Hort. Mai. vi. 19, 
t. 11). Several of these authors noticed the resemblance of 
this plant to the Balanus myrepsica, or Nux Been of the 
druggists, although in general they mentioned an essential 
difference in its having winged seeds. Plukenet (Aim. 258) 
commenced a system of error respecting this plant, by con- 
sidering it as the same with the Lignum nephriticum of 
America, an opinion which the Compiler of the Encyclo- 
pedie (Sup. i. 659) properly rejects ; for the wood of the 
Morunga gives no blue colour to water in which it is in- 
fused. 
The elder Burman endeavoured to establish two species 
of Morunga; the Morunga mas of Rumphius he called 
Moringa Zeylanica, pinnis rarioribus, flore minore (Thes. 
Zeyl. 164), distinguished by having only five stamina: 
while the Morunga Jemina of Rumphius he called Moringa 
Zeylanica, flore majore, fructu anguloso (Thes. Zeyl. 162, 
t. 75), ^distinguished by ten stamina. The character de- 
rived from the number of stamina, could we depend on the 
accuracy of Burman, would be excellent ; but in the plant 
