The Deadly Nightshade was very soon discovered by the revivers of botany after the restoration of learning; and, agreeable to the fashion of those days, it was greatly debated among commentators, whether it was known, and by what name, to the fathers of botany Theophrastus and Dioscorides. Several of the writers of that time, as Dodenæus, Guilandinus, Fuchsius, and Cordus, were of opinion, that it was the Mandragora morion of Theophrastus; and their sentiments were espoused by his learned commentator Bodæus à Stapel[3], who moreover supposes it the plant, which Dioscorides describes, lib. iv. cap. 69. under the name of Στρύχνος μανικὸς. On the other hand, Matthiolus[4] has taken great pains to prove, that it is not the Mandragora of Theophrastus; and both he and Ruellius[5] are inclined to think, that the Bella-donna was not known to either of the Grecian Fathers; who are so short, vague, and immethodical, in their descriptions, that it is very difficult, not to say impossible, to apply them to particular species with justness and precision. Be this as it will, our restorers of botany agreed in general to rank it with the Solana, or Nightshades; and as most of them took it to be the Στρύχνος μανικός of Dioscorides, so we find thereto the addition of some epithet, expressive of its deleterious quality, in most of their writings; such as lethale, somniferum, furiosum, &c. Its general agreement with the plants of that genus, and also the knowledge the world soon had of its poisonous quality, when it is considered, that systematic distributions, from the parts of fructification, had not been thought of at that time: these, I say, were sufficient reasons for referring it to the Nightshades. By such names therefore is it found in most of the old writers; till Clusius, who, observing perhaps, that it differed in its parts of fructification from the Solana, adopted the indigenous Italian name, as a generical one, and called it Bella-donna. Cæsalpinus, the first inventor of a botanic system, did not separate it from the Nightshades. Morison and Ray, the revivers of method almost an hundred years afterwards, were aware of the difference; the former having placed it in a chapter among the _Solanis affines_, and the latter constituted a distinct genus of it, tho’ he retained the old name in his history of plants. Tournefort adopted Clusius’s name _Bella-donna_, and was followed by all the systematic botanists, who have since wrote; as Boerhaave, Rivini, Ruppius, Knaut, Magnol, Ludwig, and Haller; until Linnæus, conformable to the 229th rule of the Fundamenta Botanica[6], rejected it, and very expressly calls it Atropa[7]; in which he is followed by all succeeding writers, who have chosen his method. Cæsalpinus, Morison, Ray, Herman, and Boerhaave, who range these plants according to the fruit, place the Deadly Nightshade among the _Herbæ Bacciferæ_ in their respective systems.