178 Dr. Francis HamiLron’s Commentary 
probably the same with the plant of Plukenet, more likely to 
resemble the Kaida Taddi than the Kaida. The Athrodactylis 
spinosa of Forster is more probably the Kaida. Willdenow 
(Sp. Pl. iv. 645.) makes no considerable change on these syno- 
nyma, only he adds references to several valuable modern ac- 
counts of the plant, leaving us still however in the dark, whether 
he meant the Pandanus verus of Amboina, or the Kaida of 
Malabar. In the Hortus Kewensis (v. 351.) both are omitted as 
uncertain ; and the only authority quoted is Dr. Roxburgh, who 
does not quote the Kazda (Hort. Beng. 71.), although I believe 
it was the plant he described ; but I think that he was deterred 
from quoting it by the reference in the text to fig. 1. 
Karpa Tappi, p. 3. figs. 1 and 6. 
Much of what I had to say concerning this plant has been 
anticipated in treating of the last; and I have fully explained, 
how alternately with the Kaida it has been considered as the 
same with the Ananas arborescens, or Bromelia sylvestris, or Pan- 
danus odoratissimus, as at different times it has been called. 
Plukenet, who compared specimens of the Arabian plant with 
the accounts of Rheede, seems to think that it most resembled 
the Kaida Taddi ; and, if he saw the fruit, he could not be mis- 
taken. We may therefore with some degree of confidence refer 
to the Kaida Taddi the Palme affinis arbor conifera Mascatensis 
longissimo folio tribus ordinibus spinarum munito (Pluk. Alm. 277 ; 
Mant. 145; Amalth. 13.) ; and this, again, from the country 
where it was found, is not unlikely to be the Keura odorifera of 
Forskahl, although both plants may grow in Arabia as well as 
in India. 
At first sight, it would not seem clear whether or not Rum-: 
phius described the Kaida Taddi. The fruit delineated in the 75th 
plate of his 4th volume has indeed no resemblance; but then 
this 
