180 Dr. Francis HamiLron’s Commentary 
Karna Ts1ERREA, p. 7. fig. 8. 
This continued unquoted by modern authors, until Dr. Rox- 
burgh received plants from his son in Chatigang ; and it is men- 
tioned in the Hortus Bengalensis (71.) under the name of Pan- 
danus furcatus. Rumphius indeed (Herb. Amb. iv. 149.) sup- 
posed it to be his Pandanus ceramicus montanus; but I cannot 
see any resemblance between the figure in Rheede and the de- 
scription in Rumphius, for he gives no figure; and I rather 
suspect that his plant is the Millore of the Nicobar islands (As. 
Res. iii. 161.), a magnificent plant, which I have seen in the 
garden of the late worthy Dr. James Anderson of Madras ; and 
doubtless different from the Pandanus odoratissimus, with which 
Dr. Roxburgh seems inclined to class it. 
PANEL, p. 9. fig. 9. - 
Plukenet (Mant. 139.) only mentions this plant to say, that it 
has no affinity with the Nimbo of Acosta (now called Melia 
Azadirachta), as Commeline asserted: but Commeline says 
nothing of the kind. He indeed compares the Narum Panel, 
next to be mentioned, with the Nzmbo; but he says that the 
Panel is quite different. I cannot find that the Panel has been 
' since mentioned by any author. Notwithstanding its simple 
leaves, it has very much the general appearance of the Limonia 
pentaphylla of Willdenow (Sp. Pl. ii. 572.), and probably belongs 
to the same genus with that plant, which scarcely can be con- 
sidered as being of the same family with the Limonia acidissima 
of Linnzus, the prototype of the genus. By the Limonia aci- 
dissima of Linnzus, I mean the L. crenulata of Dr. Roxburgh, 
who, misled by Koenig, took the anisifolia of Rumphius for 
the Limonia acidissima, and therefore described the Tsjeru Catu 
Naregam as a new species: but when Linnæus (FI. Zeyl. 175.) 
first 
