108 Dr. Francis HaurrTow's Commentary 
rendum propono, an Panitsjika-maram, i.e. Janipaba Pisonis 
ut censet Commelinus, sit de hujus genere (Diospyros nempe) 
plantarum, vel non ;" and again, treating of the Genipat of the 
Antilles, misled by the authority of Commeline, he says, ** Jani- 
paba Pisonis ab hac diversa est, et forte idem cum Panitsjika, 
quæ potius de Anonarum seu Mespilorum Sappadilliæ dictorum 
genere est, ut mecum existimo." Now, although he was proba- 
- bly wrong in considering the Janipaba different from the Genipat, 
because the latter is quite different from the Panitsjika, yet he 
pointed out an affinity in the Panitsjika to the Sappadillia or 
Achras, which, although one of Jussieu's Sapote, has certainly a 
considerable affinity to the Guajacane, to which the Panitsjika 
belongs. | 
M. Desrousseaux (Enc. Meth. iii. 171.), io ugh he acknow- 
ledged the resemblance which this tree bears to a Diospyros, 
considered its character, as given by Rheede, to point out its 
being a Garcinia, and accordingly calls it Garcinia malabarica. 
Gærtner (De Sem. i. 145. t. 29. f. 2.), although he did not 
quote the Panitsjika, is generally supposed to have described it 
under the name of Embryopteris peregrina, and to have probably 
been misled by the representation of the fruit at the bottom of 
the plate in the Hortus Malabaricus, which by some mistake is 
drawn inverted, and by the expression in the description, Fruc- - 
tus in vertice umbilico pre diti. Owing to these circumstances, | 
he imagined that the fruit was crowned by the calyx, in 
place of being contained in it; and of course could not consider 
it as a Diospyros. Dr. Roxburgh, unwilling to change the ge- 
_neric name given by so good a botanist, when he published his 
Flora Coromandeliana, Mint perfectly aware of the situation 
of the calyx, called the plant Embryopteris glutinifera,—a name 
and genus continued by Willdenow (Sp. PI. iv. 836.), although 
it is by no means certain that he has not described the same 
plant 
