on the Hortus Malabaricus, Part IF. 1^3 



fruit, to use the vulgar nautical phrase, gives our seamen trading to India a 

 devilish flux] How he fell into such a mistake I cannot say, as he might 

 have read in Burman, " Diwiil notat adstrictionem gutturis quae ssepe causatur 

 a fructibus immaturis. Hujus autem arboris fructus astringunt, unde in dys- 

 enteria valde commendatur." It was on this quality that the genus Coru was 

 founded, of which the Diwul is probably the prototype, as likely the same 

 with the Bolanga {Thes. Zeyl. 31.), or Balanghas {Thes. Zeyl. 84.), that is, 

 the Feronia Elephantum, which no doubt is very nearly allied to the Limoma 

 acidissima ; but both are very different from the Mai Naregam, at least in their 

 foliage and general appearance. The Dehi-ghaha, which by Linnaeus, as I have 

 mentioned, was left in the Flora Zeylanica among the PlantcB annihilates, he 

 aftenvards in the Mantissa called Limonia monophylla {fVilld. Sp. PI. u. 571.), 

 while he adopted Burman's Limonia acidissima, quoting, indeed, for the latter 

 the Catu Tsjeru Naregam, but evidently meaning the Tsjeru Catu Naregam, 

 as he quoted the 14th and not the 12th plate. 



The Catu Tsjeru Naregam continued, therefore, really unnoticed by modern 

 botanists, until it was joined by M. Lamarck {Enc. M4th. iii. 5170 with the 

 Dehi-ghaha of Burman as synonymous with the Limonia monophylla. Its 

 being^of the same genus, however, with the Tsjeru Catu Naregam, the true 

 prototype of the genus Limonia, is extremely doubtful ; for, setting aside the 

 difference of habit, it would seem to have its flower divided into four petals, 

 many stamina united at the base, and a berry with one seed. 



Catu seu Katou Naregam, p. 29. tab. 13. 

 Commeline agrees with the inhabitants of Malabar, vulgar and learned, 

 native and foreign, in considering this as a species of Citrus or Limonia, than 

 which I scarcely know an attempt at arrangement more rude. Plukenet seems 

 to have made little improvement by comparing it with the Granata Malus Zey- 

 lanica spinosa of Herman, which he calls Malus Punica Zeyhnensium, spinosa 

 (Jlm.240.), and Malus Granata Zeylonensis aculeata {Phyt. t.98.f.6.). Whether 

 or not the plant of Herman is the same with that of Plukenet I cannot say ; 

 but, if it is so, I doubt very much of its being the plant of Rheede, although 

 no doubt both belong to the same natural order, that is, to the Rubiacece of 

 Jussieu. Plukenet, indeed, quotes the Catu Naregam with doubt, in which 



VOL. XVII. Z 



