on the Hortus Malabaricus, Part III. 99 
SYALITA, p. 39. tab. 38, 39. 
I suspect that Rheede has here made a transposition of 
names, and that the Malabars call this tree Karinbalapala, 
while it is the Brahmans who call it Syalita; for these persons 
usually seem to employ Hindwi names ; and Chalta, evidently 
the same with Syalita, is the name used in the North of India. 
Besides, Karinbalapala savours of Malabar barbarism. 
Strange to say, Plukenet (Mant. 124.) confounded this with 
the Artocarpus of the islands in the Pacific Ocean, and gave an 
account from Dampier very applicable to the Artocarpus, but 
totally at variance with that of Rheede. We may presume, 
therefore, that he knew neither plant except from the descrip- 
tions of the authors quoted. Ray gave the Syalita a new name ; 
but, as usual with Indian plants, borrowed all that he says from 
Rheede. i : 
Rumphius ( Herb. Amb. ii. 141. £. 45.) described what he calls 
Songium ; and Burman in the annexed observation considers 
this, if not quite the same, as at least a species of the same 
genus; although Rumphius himself rather considered his Son- 
gius as being the same with the Syalita. In this however he 
was evidently mistaken, as the Songius has several flowers on 
each pedunculus. In the first edition of the Species Plantarum, 
therefore, Linnæus without any doubt united the Songium and 
Syalita, under the name of Dillenia indica (Burm. Fl. Ind. 124.). 
Thunberg, however, (Linn. Trans. i. 200.) considered them as 
distinct species, calling the Syalita, Dillenia speciosa, and the 
Songium, D. elliptica; but the only difference, which he marks, 
is, that the former has folia oblonga, rotundato-acuta, while the 
latter has folia elliptico-ovata, acuta. These differences are not 
well defined ; and I must confess myself unable to comprehend 
what a folium rotundato-acutum means. From the notes sub- 
o 2 joined 
