on the Hortus Malabaricus, Part IF. 205 



and the American tree of Plukenet, retaining, however, the Bintangor, and 

 Plukenet's tree from Madras, which I think is probably a Gardenia. In his 

 note, also, he changes the Tacamaque of M. Lamarck into resina Tacamahaca 

 dicta ; but the Tacamahaca of the Encyclopddie (v. 238.) is quite different 

 from the Tacamaque. 



In the Hortus Kewensis the Bintangor, as well as the tree of Plukenet, is 

 properly omitted among the synonyma ; and Dr. Roxburgh, who had received 

 the Biittaugor from the Eastern Islands, mentions it as a distinct species 

 {Hort. Beng.Al.). 



Gsertner {De Sem. i. 200. t. 43. /. 1.) omits both the Ponna and Bintangor 

 among the synonyma of the Calophyllum Inophyllum, quoting alone Plukenet 

 {Phyt. t. 147. /. 3.), who, as I have said, probably has given the figure of a 

 Gardenia. Gsertner's description and figure, however, taken from a fruit in 

 the collection of Sir Joseph Banks, no doubt belong to a Calophyllum, and 

 are copied in Lamarck's figures marked e,f, g, h. 



TsjERou Ponna, sen Tsjeru Punna, p. 81. tab. 39. 



The name given by the Brahmans of Malabar to this tree in the letter-press 

 is said to be Cit (alba) Octi, but in the plate it has been engraved Undi, pro- 

 bably by mistake. Both seem to be words peculiar to Malabar ; for the tree 

 is not a native of the North of India. 



Ray and Plukenet {Mant. 67.) reckoned this tree a species of Cornus, for no 

 other reason, that I can imagine, but that Rheede says, " fructus Cornis nos- 

 tratibus cum figura tum magnitudine et substantia baud absimiles." 



Herman had sent to Commeline, as the latter remarks in his note, the 

 branch of a tree called by the Ceylonese Kina, which he considered as the 

 Tsjerou Ponna, and he afterwards described a Kina minor (Hin Kina of the 

 Ceylonese), both belonging, perhaps, to the same genus, although this is by no 

 means certain. The elder Burman, however, considered the Kina as the same 

 with the Punna of Rheede, and the Hin Kina as being the Tsjerou Ponna, in 

 both which suppositions he was probably mistaken. He fortunately, however, 

 gave an account and figure (Thes. Zeyl. 130. t. 60.) under the name of 

 Inophyllum fiore quadrifido, of what he thought the Hin Kina and Tsjerou 

 Ponna. Neither his account, however, nor his figure agrees with those of 



2 E 2 



