90 Dr. Francis HaurzrTow's Commentary 
Axona Maram, p. 23. tab. 30. 31. 
In the Commentary on the Herbarium Amboinense (i. 136.), 
when treating of the Anona, I have said all that occurs to me 
as necessary concerning this plant. From a slight resemblance 
in the fruit, this and the preceding tree have been erroneously 
classed by the Brahmans of Malabar with the Artocarpus in the 
genus Ponossou. | 
ANSJELI, p. 25. tab. 32. 
In the Commentary above mentioned (i. 109.), when treating 
of the Angelyquen, I have mentioned all that appears necessary 
concerning this tree, which the Brahmans most properly class 
with the Artocarpus or Ponossou, giving this the specific name 
Pata (small), which in the plate is wrongly engraved Pala. 
Karov TsjaKkA, p. 29. tab. 33. 
This is the plant which I mentioned in the Commentary on 
page 17 as having been considered by the natives as belonging 
to the same genus with the Artocarpus integrifolia ; no doubt a 
very rude arrangement, as Commeline in his subjoined note 
remarks. | | 
Plukenet formed a much more accurate conjecture (Alm. 47. 
& 203.) in classing it with his Arbor Americana triphylla, fructu 
Platani quodammodo emulante (Phyt. t. 77. f. A); which in 
another place (Alm. 336.) he calls Scabiosa dendroides Ameri- 
cana, ternis foliis circa caulem ambientibus, floribus ochroleucis, 
which is the Cephalanthus occidentalis.  Linnæus accordingly in 
the Flora Zeylanica, 53, called this plant the Cephalanthus foliis 
oppositis. He afterwards, however, considered that its having 
five stamina was a ground sufficient for separating it from the 
Cephalanthus, which has only four; and therefore in the first 
edition of the Species Plantarum he called it Nauclea orientalis, in 
which 
