on the Hortus Malabaricus, Part II. 179 
this figure has no resemblance to the description of the Pandanus 
spurius, which it is said to represent; for in this description we 
have as follows: ** Maturus fructus vero in multa aperitur ac 
dehiscit segmenta, quorum quodvis ex variis constat pyramidi- 
bus (drupis), que non separantur nisi vi." This, in my opinion, 
clearly points out that the Pandanus spurius has a fruit resem- 
bling that of the Kaida Taddi; and therefore, although it is 
quoted both by Willdenow (Sp. Pl. iv. 645.) and by M. La- 
marck (Enc. Meth. i. 372.) as a mere variety of the Pandanus 
odoratissimus, I can have no doubt that it is the Pandanus fasci- 
cularis of these authors (Sp. Pl. iv. 640.; Enc. Meth. i. 372.) ; 
unless it should appear that, besides the Kaida Taddi, another 
species is provided drupis fasciculatis. It is true that Rum- 
phius, in plates 80 and 81, represents a plant with such a fruit ; 
and in the explanation of these plates this is called Folium Baggea 
maritimum, described in page 151. In this description, how- 
ever, there is no hint given of the drupæ separating into clus- 
ters as the fruit ripens; and I strongly suspect, that a transpo- 
sition has taken place, and that plates 80 and 81 represent the 
Pandanus spurius, while plate 75 represents the Folium Baggea 
maritimum. It seems owing to this difference between the de- 
scription and the appearance of the fruit in plate 81, that 
M. Lamarck quoted (Enc. Meth. i. 372.) the Folium Baggea 
maritimum with doubt for the Pandanus fascicularis. If this 
conjectured transposition has actually taken place, every doubt 
of the Pandanus spurius being the same with the Kaida Taddi 
will be removed, and the plates in Rumphius will agree with the 
descriptions. 
Perrin Karpa Tappi, p. 5. fig. 7. 
This is evidently a distinct species of Pandanus, not yet 
quoted by modern authors. 
VOL. XIV. 2 B Karpa 
