218 Dr. Francts Hamitton’s Commentary 
but Rheede says of the Ben Kadali, “ filamenta decem—uniformia.” It there- 
fore belongs to Dr. Jack’s division called Stomandra (Linn. Trans. xiv. 10.) ; 
but does not seem to have been described by him. 
Katou Kapau, p. 91. tab. 43., by mistake on the Plate called Katou Kapaut. 
What I have said respecting the two last plants must be carefully kept in 
view while we consider this. Commeline in his Commentary looked upon it 
as the Maha Bothya of Herman, and it should therefore be the Melastoma 
quinquenervia hirta major, capitulis sericeis villosis of the elder Burman, and 
the Melastoma foliis lanceolato-ovatis scabris quinquenerviis of the Flora Zey- 
lanica (171.), now called M. Malabathrica. I have, however, no doubt that 
Commeline was mistaken ; and that, although the Katou Kadali has five nerves, 
it cannot, on account of its smaller flowers and of its paniculated structure, be 
the same with the Maha Bothya of Herman, and with the plant of Burman 
and Linnzeus, although these authors no doubt have erred in joining their 
plant with the Kadali, which has only three nerves. Burman, indeed, was 
perfectly aware of Commeline’s error, and therefore with great propriety con- 
sidered the Katou Kadali as a distinct species from the Maha Bothya, and 
called it Melastoma quinquenervia minor, capitulis villosis (Thes. Zeyl. 154.), 
giving its synonyma rightly, so far as I know, except in joining with it a plant 
of Jamaica, now called M. discolor (Willd. Sp. Pl. ii. 599.). From Burman 
we also learn that the Katow Kadali is the Hin Bothya of Herman, which, 
together with Burman’s Melastoma quinquenervia minor, capitulis villosis, 
Linnzeus unaccountably joined with his Melastoma foliis lanceolatis trinerviis 
scabris (Fl. Zeyl. 172.), which is now called Melastoma aspera (Willd. Sp. Pl. 
ii. 583.). For this, however, Willdenow has properly omitted the synonyma of 
Herman and Rheede ; and, as I have before observed, it is in reality the Kadali 
of the latter. 
Plukenet (4/m. 106.) described a plant, which he called Cistus Cham«rho- 
dodendros s. Ledum orientale, pentaneuros, foliis brevioribus, ferruginea et molli 
lanugine villosis. This, according to him, is the Maha Bothya of the Ceylonese; 
but he proposed the Katou Kadali, with doubt, as synonymous, not willing 
entirely to contradict Commeline, and yet seeming aware of the objections to 
his opinion. Plukenet’s plant, it must be observed, is not called a Cistus 
