178 Dr. Francis Hamilton's Commentary 



probably the same with the plant of Plukenet, more likely to 

 resemble the Koida Taddi than the Kaida. The Athrodacti/lin 

 spinosa of Forster is more probably the Kaida. Willdenow 

 (Sp. PL iv. 645.) makes no considerable change on these syno- 

 nyma, only he adds references to several valuable modern ac- 

 counts of the plant, leaving us still however in the dark, whether 

 he meant the Pandanus verus of Amboina, or the Kaida of 

 Malabar. In the Hortus Kewensis (v. 351.) both are omitted as 

 uncertain ; and the only authority quoted is Dr. Roxburgh, who 

 does not quote the Kaida {Hort. Beng. 71.)» although I believe 

 it was the plant he described ; but I think that he was deterred 

 from quoting it by the reference in the text to fig. 1. 



Kaida Taddi, p. 3. Jigs. 1 and 6. 



Much of what I had to say concerning this plant has been 

 anticipated in treating of the last ; and 1 have fully explained, 

 how alternately with the Kaida it has been considered as the 

 same with the Ananas arborescens, or Bromelia sylvestris, or Pan- 

 danus odoratissimus, as at different times it has been called. 

 Plukenet, who compared specimens of the Arabian plant with 

 the accounts of Rheede, seems to think that it most resembled 

 the Kaida Taddi ; and, if he saw the fruit, he could not be mis- 

 taken. We may therefore with some degree of confidence refer 

 to the Kaida Taddi the Palmes affinis arboi' conifera Mascatensis 

 longissimo folio tribus ordinibus spinarum munito (Pluk. Aim. 277 ; 

 Mant. 145; Amalth. 13.); and this, again, from the country 

 where it was found, is not unlikely to be the Keura odorifera of 

 Forskahl, although both plants may grow in Arabia as well as 

 in India. 



At first sight, it would not seem clear whether or not Rum- 

 phius described the Kaida Taddi. The fruit delineated in the 75th 

 plate of his 4th volume has indeed no resemblance ; but then 



this 



