on the Hortus Malabaricus, Part IV. 205 
and the American tree of Plukenet, retaining, however, the Bintangor, and 
Plukenet’s tree from Madras, which I think is probably a Gardenia. In his 
note, also, he changes the T'acamaque of M. Lamarck into resina Tacamahaca 
dicta; but the Tacamahaca of the Encyclopédie (v. 238.) is quite different 
from the Tacamaque. 
In the Hortus Kewensis the Bintangor, as well as the tree of Plukenet, is 
properly omitted among the synonyma ; and Dr. Roxburgh, who had received 
the Bintangor from the Eastern Islands, mentions it as a distinct species 
(Hort. Beng. 41.). 
Geertner (De Sem. i. 200. t. 43. f. 1.) omits both the Ponna and Bintangor 
among the synonyma of the Culophyllum Inophyllum, quoting alone Plukenet 
(Phyt. t. 147. f. 3.), who, as I have said, probably has given the figure of a 
Gardenia. Geertner’s description and figure, however, taken from a fruit in 
the collection of Sir Joseph Banks, no doubt belong to a Calophyllum, and 
are copied in Lamarck's figures marked e, f, g, h. 
TssERou Ponna, seu Tsseru Punna, p. 81. tab. 39. 
The name given by the Brahmans of Malabar to this tree in the letter-press 
is said to be Cit (alba) Octi, but in the plate it has been engraved Undi, pro- 
bably by mistake. Both seem to be words peculiar to Malabar ; for the tree 
is not a native of the North of India. 
Ray and Plukenet (Mant. 57.) reckoned this tree a species of Cornus, for no 
other reason, that I can imagine, but that Rheede says, “ fructus Cornis nos- 
tratibus cum figura tum magnitudine et substantia haud absimiles." 
Herman had sent to Commeline, as the latter remarks in his note, the 
branch of a tree called by the Ceylonese Kina, which he considered as the 
Tsjerou Ponna, and he afterwards described a Kina minor (Hin Kina of the 
Ceylonese), both belonging, perhaps, to the same genus, although this is by no 
means certain. The elder Burman, however, considered the Kina as the same 
with the Punna of Rheede, and the Hin Kina as being the Tsjerou Ponna, in 
both which suppositions he was probably mistaken. He fortunately, however, 
gave an account and figure (Thes. Zeyl. 130. t. 60.) under the name of 
Inophyllum flore quadrifido, of what he thought the Hin Kina and Tsjerou 
Ponna. Neither his account, however, nor his figure agrees with those of 
2E2 
