C '9 ] 
of Matthiolus , Scaliger, Kircher , Boccone , and 
others; yet the Fatality of its Poifon, when growing 
in this Kingdom, has been doubted by many ; inaf- 
mueh as that faithful Colledor the late Mr. Ray 
mentions, in his Synopjis , Edit. 2. Rag. 3 26. that 
not only his Friend Mr. Petiver eat half an Ounce 
of the Root of this Plant, but that Mr. Henly , a 
Friend of Mr. Petiver s, in his Prefence, eat, with- 
out any Inconvenience, three or four Ounces of the 
fame Root. From hence it has been thought, either 
that the Root has Effe&s different from the Stalks 
and Leaves, or, that Difference of Climate varies the 
Degree of the Violence of the Poifon. 
An Obfervation indeed of the fame kind occurs in 
the German Ephemeridee. Linnaeus , in the Hortus 
Cliffortianus, makes alfo fome Doubt concerning 
the Malignity of this Plant; and, in naming it, has 
kept to the old Appellation of Theophraftus and 
c Diofcorides , Comum ; and has transferred that of Ci- 
cuta , to the Cicuta aquatica of Gefner-, and of 
Wepfer . Beftdes, many of the Accidents, faid to 
have proceeded from Cicuta or Hemlock, have been 
occafion’d by different Plants; fome of the Accidents, 
probably, from the common one, but many more 
from the Cicuta dquatica before-mention’d, and from 
the Oenanthe fucco viroJo> Cicuta facie , of Lobel. 
This Confufion appears maniieftlyin fcveral Authors, 
and fome of them of the greateft Credit. Which of 
thefe Plants, or whether any of them, was the Athe- 
nian Poifon, nobody has determined. 
Altho’ the Eating of the Roots, as above -men - 
tion’d, was attended with no bad Confequences, a 
late melancholy Accident has been fufficiently con- 
C 2 vincing 
