[ 866 ] 
Fig. 6 . A leaf In Plukenet’s fpecimens. 
Fig. 7. Another leaf of the fame collection, and 
of the fame plant. 
Fig. 8. A leaf of a large fpecimen from Boer- 
haave’s collection.. 
Fig. 9. Another leaf on the fame branch. 
Fig. 10. A fpecimen from Petiver’s collection-; 
The points of the leaves are broken off. 
Fig. 1 1. The flower of the firft fpecimen. 
Fig. 1 2. In the rudiment of the feed before form- 
ed, in the ftate given in Burman’s f rft drawing.. 
Note, It is to be obfervcd alfo, that the fpecimens 
of the Cinnamon of Ceylon are probably of 
cultivated plants. 
From all thefe fpecimens it plainly appears, that 
the diftinCtion of fcliis ovatis & lanceolatis does not 
appear well founded. 
But were it otherwife, and that the leaves of the 
plants differed, it would by no means be a proof of 
any material difference in the nature or quality of the 
plants; as is well known to perfons converfant in 
natural lhitory. 
Before I leave this fubjeCt of the defcription of the- 
plant, it may be proper to mention, that Bauhin 
c^lls the one of thefe plants Cinnamomum or Canella 
Malabar ica & Ja-vanenfis } and the other Cinnamomum 
Canella Zcylanica , Bauhin . pinax 408 and 405) ; but 
neither from thefe names, nor from his defcription, 
can any conclusive argument be formed : and that 
Herman, in his Hort. Lugd, Balav. 125?. t. 1655. 
calls this Cinnamon of Ceylon Caffia Cinnamonia. 
If any conjeCture can arife from hence, it may be, 
that the Cinnamon of Ceylon was formerly, as well 
as 
