172 Dr. Francis Hamriton’s Commentary 
affinis arbor conifera. He seems however soon afterwards to 
have become sensible, that this classing it with the Palms was 
erroneous; and, instead of imitating Rheede, returned (Amalth. 
13.) to the old name of J. Bauhin, Ananas sylvestris, folio aloes, 
fructu cupressino. 
Rumphius (Herb. Amb. iv. 13.) clearly perceived, that such 
rude attempts at classification were not tenable; and, while he 
rejected the Kaida as of doubtful origin, he adopted Pandanus 
from the Malay language, and described at least twelve species 
of this genus, besides adding to it some plants that must be re- 
ferred to another quarter. 
The elder Burman, notwithstanding he had before his eyes 
the works of Rheede and Rumphius, contrived (Thes. Zeyl. 20.) 
to confound this genus with the Ananas, and refers to the de- 
scription of the Bromelia by Linnzeus for an excellent account 
of its generic characters! This indeed may be considered as the 
most unfortunate classification ever adopted by this great bota- 
nist; for in the Flora Zeylanica (p. 131.) he implicitly followed 
the elder Burman, as the younger Burman again followed him 
(Fl. Ind.79.). This genus of plants continued thus unnaturally 
connected, until Forskahl, meeting probably with the species 
which Plukenet had received through A. Brown from Arabia, 
gave its proper generic characters under the name Keura. 
Shortly afterwards Forster gave this genus the name Athrodac- 
tylis; and the younger Linnæus, convinced of his father’s error, 
with great propriety restored the name Pandanus given by Rum- 
phius, and now generally followed. 
Although all botanists now clearly perceived that this was a 
distinct genus, yet Jussieu, when he published his Genera Plan- 
tarum, was at a loss in what natural order it should be placed; , 
and, like Plukenet in his first conjecture, considered it as having 
an affinity to the Palme. M. du Petit-Thouars, who has added 
| largely 
