on the Hortus Malabaricus, Part III. 109 
plant under the name of Diospyros discolor. This is the Cava- 
nillea Mabolo of Lamarck (Ill. Gen. t. 454.), and the Cavanillea 
Philippensis of M. Poiret (Enc. Meth. Sup. ii. 135; iii. 566.). 
The latter seems to be of this opinion: yet, although the leaves 
vary much in form, I have some doubt whether the Mabolo is 
the same species with the Panitsika; because the former has 
only four or six seeds, and is hairy; while the latter has eight 
or ten, and is quite smooth. Concerning the genus there can 
be no doubt. Brown (Nov. Holl. i. 525.) and Dr. Roxburgh 
finally abandoned Embryopteris altogether, and called this plant 
Diospyros glutinifera (Hort. Beng. 40.); while Persoon, con- 
verting the generic into a specific name, calls it Dyospyros Em- 
bryopteris (Enc.. Meth. Sup. iii. 566.), which savours too much 
of botanical Greek, and might lead one to suppose that it was a 
l'ern. 
I have already mentioned that the Mabolo can scarcely be of 
the same species with the Panitsjika, on account of its roughness 
and the number of seeds in its fruit. In the woods south of 
the Ganges I found a tree, which in the catalogue of specimens 
presented to the library at the India House (No. 2389) I have 
called Diospyros exculpta, on account of its leaves being as it 
were carved on the upper side. ‘This, both in number of seeds 
and pubescence .resembles the Mabolo, and may be the same, 
although its leaves are much blunter than represented in M. La- 
 marck's figure. This, however, is uncertain: and it must be 
observed that I saw only the male flowers, while the description 
by M. Desrousseaux (Enc. Meth. iii. 664.) refers to the herma- 
phrodite, which will account for some differences. Dr. Rox- 
burgh, however, received a Mabolo from the Philippines, which 
he considered different from the Diospyros tomentosa of Bengal ; 
- and this perhaps is — tree I am going to describe, although the 
natives 
