[48] The Arabic name Bish or Persian Bis is stated by Moodeen Sheriff in his Supplement to the Pharmacopœia of India (p. 265) to be a more correct designation than Bikh, which seems to be a corruption of doubtful origin. We find that the Arabian writer Ibn Baytar gives the word as Bish (not Bikh).
[49] Figured in Bentley and Trimen, Med. Plants (1877) pt. 27.
[50] Flor. Ind. i. (1855) 54, 57; and Introd. Essay, 3.
[51] Abu Mansur Mowafik ben Ali Alherui, Liber Fundamentorum Pharmacologiæ, i. (Vindob. 1830) 47. Seligmann’s edition.
[52] Valgrisi edition, 1564, lib. ii. tract. 2. it. N. (p. 347).
[53] Ibn Baytar, Sontheimers transl. i. (1840) 199.
[54] Clusius, Exotica, 289.
[55] Pharm. Persica, 1681, p. 17, 319, 358. The word bisch is correctly given in Arabic characters, so that of its identity there can be no dispute. (Pharm. persica, see appendix: Angelus.)
[56] Account of the Kingdom of Nepal, Edin. 1819, 98.
[57] Musée Helvétique d’Hist. Nat. Berne, i. (1823) 160.