on the Hortus Malabaricus, Part IV. " TN 
pulpiferus, his name for the genus Melastoma; but he uses the term Cistus 
Chameerhododendros, implying probably its having a capsule like the Rhodo- 
dendron, and therefore its being an Osbeckia or Rhexia. But further, his plant 
is in fact only called pentaneuros by mistake; for in the figure referred to 
(Phyt. t. 161. f. 2.), it is represented with seven nerves, and in the Phytographia 
is called Cistus Cham«erhododendros heptaneuros. It is therefore as different 
from the Katou Kadali, as that is from the Kadali. 
M. Desrousseaux, however, (Enc. Méth. iv. 36.) seems to have entertained no 
doubt that the plant of Plukenet was the same with the Katou Kadali, and 
seems to consider them as the same with the M. Malabathrica, although he 
quotes them with doubt. If, indeed, it is insisted on that Rheede must have 
described the M. Malabathrica, then the only plant of his, that we can con- 
sider as such, must be the Katou Kadali, on which account I quoted it in the 
catalogue of specimens presented to the India House; but I am now con- 
vinced that the M. Malabathrica is not described in the Hortus Malabaricus, 
and that the Katow Kadali has not yet been properly introduced into the 
modern system of botany. 
TszEnov Kapaur p. 93. fab. 44. 
Commeline justly remarks, that this is also a species of Cistus, in the sense 
then adopted by botanists, that is, it is a Melastoma. Plukenet (Mant. 49.) 
called it “Cistus orientalis pulpifer, Jujubinis foliis trinerviis, capsula parva." 
I cannot, however, discover that the Tsjerou Kadali has been mentioned by 
any subsequent writer. 
OEPATA, p. 95. tab. 45. 
Commeline is uncertain whether this may not be the Anacardium, meaning, 
no doubt, the 4. orientale, and the seed of the Oepata has, no doubt, a certain 
resemblance to that nut; but even the fruits are entirely different in structure, 
nor have the trees any affinity. Plukenet, however, quoted the Oepata among 
the synonyma of the A. orientale (Alm. 28.). Linnæus continued in the same 
error, calling this plant Avicennia (Fl. Zeyl.57.), for he perceived that it could 
not belong to the same genus with the Kapa Mava or Arajou of the West 
Indies, to which he had given the generic name Anacardium. Along with the 
Oepata, however, he quoted for his Avicennia the true Anacardium or A. ori- 
VOL. XVII. 26 
