on the Hortu* Malabaricus, Part I. 531 



is a species of Spondias. I therefore suppose that Willdenow 

 took the Ambalam to be the Mangifera pi /mat a, for it is really a 

 Spondias, which in the Encyclopedic (iv. 261.) is called Spondias 

 amara, not I presume from any bitter quality, but from the name 

 Amra, by which it is known in the Ilindwi and Bengalese dia- 

 lects, derived from the Amarataca of the Sanscrita. 



Athough the figure is not quoted in the Hortu* Bcngaknsis, 

 I know perfectly that the Ambalam is the Spondias mangifera <>i 

 that Catalogue (34.), and probably of Willdenow (ii. 751.), bo 

 called, I suppose, on the belief that it was the Mangifera piu- 

 nata of Linmeus. But this is extremely doubtful, the Comlon- 

 dum of Rumphius having a much better claim, from the stria - 

 ture of the fruit, to be considered a Mangifera : and in the 

 account of the Mangifera pinnata in the Encyclopedic, derived 

 from plants in the Isle of France, it is stated that the nut of its 

 fruit is analogous to that of the common Mango; that is to saw 

 is fibrous as in the Condondum and Chrysobalanus. Specimens 

 of both the Ambalam and Mangifera pinnata from the Isle of 

 France, the latter given to me by Dr. Wallich, are in the col- 

 lection which I presented to the East India Company's Library. 

 I have little doubt, therefore, that while we call the Ambalam, 

 Spondias amara, quoting the Spojidias mangifera of Roxburgh and 

 "Willdenow as synonyms, w T e may restore the Mangifera pinnata 

 of the younger Linnreus to the system, quoting for it the Con- 

 dondum. Its being polygamous is no proof of its not being a 

 Mangifera, that being the case with the common Mango. That 

 the Mangifera indica is not a Spondias, is clear from its having 

 only one stylus. 



Cat 



