378 
COMMENTARY ON 
digitalis foliis lasvibus, fructu quinquecapsulari, aloa et ni- 
tente lanugine farcto but unless the figure (Phyt. 1. 188, 
f. 4) be very bad, he must have been mistaken, as it repre- 
sents numerous stamina; on which account, his plant is 
quoted by Willdenow for the Bombax heptaphyllum, al- 
though in other respects it has but little resemblance to 
that tree. The synonyma, however, which Plukenet gave, 
probably all belong to the Pania or Eriophorus Javanica, 
although he quotes the former erroneously, as if Pania 
Paniala had been one name, an error copied by several 
subsequent writers. 
Linnaeus, in the Hortus Cliffortianus and Flora Zeyla- 
nica, endeavoured to distinguish the species of this genus 
by the presence or absence of prickles on the stem ; and 
indeed Rheede takes no notice of the prickles on the Pania, 
while he mentions these of the Moul Elavou, the very 
word Moul implying prickles. Linnseus, however, soon 
afterwards learned, that the stems of the younger trees of 
the Pania are prickly, as is stated by Rumphius ; and he 
therefore had recourse to other distinguishing marks, with- 
out, however, altering the synonyma, which his former de- 
fective characters had induced him to adopt, in considering 
two American trees as the same with the two plants of 
Asia, because one had a smooth, and the other a prickly 
stem. 
Caput LXVIII. 
Bilacus Teller, p. 167, t. 81. 
Into the explanation of either this or the following plate 
some error has crept. The fruit represented at A is said 
to be that of the Bilacus taurmus, but this again is said 
to be represented in plate 82. The fruit marked B is said 
to be the Bilacus ovalis or tellor, and the fruit C is said 
