100 Dr. Francis HAM1ILTON’s Commentary 
joined it would however seem to be the same with folium ob- 
tusum cum acumine ; but in looking at Rheede's figure there is 
no such appearance, and the leaves of the Syalita, as figured in 
the Hortus Malabaricus, are more clearly marked as elliptica, 
than those of the Songium, which are nearly lanceolata. On the 
whole, after comparing the descriptions of Rheede and Rum- 
phius with a plant very common in India, I can see no essential 
difference, and therefore adhere to the opinion of Linnzus, in 
considering the Syalita and Songium as one plant. Willdenow 
however (Sp. PI. ii. 1251, 1252.) and M. Poiret (Enc. Meth. 
vii. 150, 151.) adopt the opinion of Thunberg, but entirely on 
his authority, neither of them having seen the plant. 
I shall here take an opportunity of describing three Indian 
Dillenias, although each may have been already described ; for 
it is of advantage to have accounts from different persons, and 
I have deposited specimens in the library at the India House. 
1. Dillenia pentagyna. Willd. Sp. Pl. ii. 1951. Hort. Kew. 
iii. 329. Hort. Beng. 43. Enc. Meth. vii. 150. 
Ban’ Chalta Hindice. 
Habitat in Indiæ aridioris sylvis. 
Arbor mediocris. Ramuli crassi, teretes, cicatricibus lunatis 
exasperati. Folia decidua, post flores Junio erumpentia, 
conferta, alterna, oblonga, basi acutiuscula, apice nunc ob- 
tusa, tunc acuta, supra pilis incumbentibus aspersa, subtus 
nuda, costata, venis minutissime reticulata, apicibus costa- 
rum prominentibus dentata.  Petiolus amplexicaulis, bre- 
vissimus, margine membranaceo basin versus dilatatus, 
supra concavus, non stipulaceus. 
Gemma florales supra cicatrices petiolorum anni preteriti enatæ, 
squamos:e, pubescentes, multiflorze. Pedunculi plures, con- 
gesti, uniflori, teretes, glabri, longitudine floris. Bractee 
nulle, 
