( 439 ) 
Balechampe, and Clufius , concluded, that the Plant 
which the JEgypttans call Culcas, which is fh^ Arum 
Mgypttum in P//»y, niuft needs be the Fsba /Eghtia of 
DiofcoriJ. and Theophr. However, this did not anfwer 
their Defcription , fince they could not conceive any 
Plant within the Line of their Knowledge, to make fo 
near an approach to it i both from the Affioity and 
found of i ts Name in Coiocafia 5 as alfb, the ancient 
ufe of feeding upon its Root, continued among thcfe 
Nations of Syria ^ Arabia and Africa^ time 
immemorial, where^ 'cis faid, this Faba alio was in ufe • 
But the Fruit or Nuts was their Food, and net the Roots ; 
the Teeth of Time having inverted both Name and 
Uie. 
Nov^m I^ymphaa glmJifer a of our Author does 
cxaSly anfwer all the Notes of the firft Defcriber, I 
mean Theophraftiu ; and proves, that he gave a ratio- 
nal and true Account of this Plant, contrary to the fa- 
fpicions of Modern Botanifts: Diofcorides indeed gives 
alike account almoft in totidem verbis ; and Plhy fup- 
pofed to have borrowed from botb,^ though he never 
names the latter , mufl: be alike congruous in his Ac- 
count. 
But h^rt Matthioius was indeed to blame, when, ra- 
ther then be thought ignorant of fb celebrated a Plant 
as this /Egyptian Bean (which or her wife he does well 
enough diftinguiili from the Arum of that Countrey) 
he propofcd to the World a falfe and fiditious Icon^ ^ 
accommodated to tiie Defcription fr-ora his own Imagi- 
nation and Fkncy^ butliath mightily fail'd in the ftru- 
dure of its Fruit, not confidering how little it referab- 
led a Honeycomb. Guilandinm m\\ have it, that what 
he there proposed, was a kind of Arum, that grows 
frequently in many parts of Italy ; though, as him- 
felf affirms, Odoardm it him at Trent ^ with 
