on the Hortus Malabaricus, Part IT. 175 
this genus, which he called Palme affinis arbor conifera Masca- 
tensis, longissimo folio, tribus ordinibus spinarum munito, at first 
(Alm. 277.) considered it as the same with the Kaida, and with 
the plant of Ray already mentioned ; but on further considera- 
tion (Mant. 145.) he questions if his plant be not rather the 
Kaida Taddi, next to be described. As the fruits of the two 
plants cannot be mistaken, and are the only parts, except the male 
flowers, likely to be preserved in a dry specimen, we may I think 
infer that he was at first mistaken, and that his plant was not 
the Kaida: yet still afterwards (Amalth. 13.), when he acknow- 
ledged his error in classing it with the Palme, he adopts the 
name of J. Bauhin, already mentioned as probably belonging to 
the Kaida. 
Rumphius, who described at least vie species of this genus, 
in describing the Pandanus verus, says (Herb. Amb. iv. 241.), 
* [n Horto Malabarico quatuor hujus plantæ exhibentur species, 
nulla autem omnino convenit cum Pandano nostro, excepta 
prima species, seu vera Kaida, que Pandano nostro vero acce- 
dit, Malabarensis vero folia multo sunt longiora." And again he 
says (p.141.), **Acosta folia florem cingentia scribat nimis lutea, 
fructus eleganter rubros et melonum magnitudinem habentes, 
atque quod ex cunctis vulneratis ramis et trunco copiosus ex- 
stillet liquor, quz» omnia forte in Malabarensi et Indostano Pan- 
dano vera sunt, in Amboinensi autem et Moluccensi non ob- 
tinet, neutiquam tamen pro diversis habeantur plantis. Panda- 
nus enim fere in omni variat insula." Finally, he further says, 
* [n Amboina Pandanus verus non multum obcurrit; quique ibi 
reperitur debilem fundit odorem, neque flores tam bone notae 
ac durabiles sunt quam in aliis locis." From these circum- 
stances, as this is not a cultivated plant liable as such to many 
variations, I would draw a conclusion different from that of 
Rumphius, and conclude, that although under the name Panda- 
nus 
