\y 



on the Hortus Malabaricus, Part II. 179 



this figure has no resemblance to the description of the Pandanus 

 spurius, which it is said to represent ; for in this description we 

 have as follows : " Maturus fructus vero in multa aperitur ac 

 dehiscit segmenta, quorum quodvis ex variis constat pyramidi- 

 bus (drupis), quae non separantur nisi vi." This, in my opinion, 

 clearly points out that the Pandanus spurius has a fruit resem- 

 bling that of the Kaida Taddi; and therefore, although it is 

 quoted both by Willdenow (Sp. PL iv. 645.) and by M. La- 

 marck (Enc. Meth. i. 372.) as a mere variety of the Pandanus 

 odoratissimus, I can have no doubt that it is the Pandanus fasci- 

 cularis of these authors {Sp. PI. iv. 640.; Enc. Meth. i. 372.) ; 

 unless it should appear that, besides the Kaida Taddi, another 

 species is provided drupis fasciculatis. It is true that Rum- 

 phius, in plates 80 and 81, represents a plant with such a fruit; 

 and in the explanation of these plates this is called Folium Baggea 

 maritimum, described in page 151. In this description, how- 

 ever, there is no hint given of the drupae separating into clus- 

 ters as the fruit ripens ; and I strongly suspect, that a transpo- 

 sition has taken place, and that plates 80 and 81 represent the 

 Pandanus spurius, while plate 75 represents the Folium Baggea 

 maritimum. It seems owing to this difference between the de- 

 scription and the appearance of the fruit in plate 81, that 

 M. Lamarck quoted {Enc. Meth. ii. 372.) the Folium Baggea 

 maritimum with doubt for the Pandanus fascicularis. If this 

 conjectured transposition has actually taken place, every doubt 

 of the Pandanus spurius being the same with the Kaida Taddi 

 will be removed, and the plates in Rumphius will agree with the 

 descriptions. 



Perin Kaida Taddi, p. 5. Jig. 7- 

 This is evidently a distinct species of Pandanus, not yet 

 quoted by modern authors. 



VOL. XIV. 2 B Kaida 



