218 Dr. Francis Hamilton's Commentary 



but Rheede says of the Ben Kadali, " filamenta decern — uniformia." It there- 

 fore belongs to Dr. Jack's division called Stomandra {Linn. Trans, xiv. 10.) ; 

 but does not seem to have been described by him. 



Katou Kadali, ^.91. tab. 43., by mistake on the Plate called Kalou Kadali. 



What I have said respecting the two last plants must be carefully kept in 

 view while we consider this. Commeline in his Commentary looked upon it 

 as the Maha Bothya of Herman, and it should therefore be the Melastoma 

 quinquenerv'ia hirta major, capituUs sericeis villosis of the elder Burman, and 

 the 3Ielasto?na foliis lanceolato-ovatis scabris quinquenerviis of the Flora Zey- 

 lanica (171.), now called M. Malahathricu. I have, however, no doubt that 

 Commeline was mistaken ; and that, although the Katou Kadali has five nerves, 

 it cannot, on account of its smaller flowers and of its paniciilated structure, be 

 the same with the Maha Bothya of Herman, and with the plant of Burman 

 and Linnaeus, although these authors no doubt have erred in joining their 

 plant with the Kadali, which has only three nerves. Burman, indeed, was 

 perfectly aware of Commeline's error, and therefore with great propriety con- 

 sidered the Katou Kadali as a distinct species from the Maha Bothya, and 

 called it Melastoma quinqiienervia minor, cupitulis villosis {Thes. Zeyl. 154.), 

 giving its synonyma rightly, so far as I know, except in joining with it a plant 

 of Jamaica, now called M. discolor {Willd. Sp. PI. ii. 599.). From Burman 

 we also learn that the Katou Kadali is the Hin Bothya of Herman, which, 

 together with Burman's Melastoma quinquenervia minor, capituUs villosis, 

 Linnaeus unaccountably joined with his Melastoma foliis lanceolatis trinerviis 

 scabris (Fl. Zeyl. 172.), which is now called Melastoma aspera {IVilld. Sp. PI. 

 ii. 583.). For this, however, Willdenow has properly omitted the synonyma of 

 Herman and Rheede ; and, as I have before observed, it is in reality the Kadali 

 of the latter. 



Plukenet {Aim. 106.) described a plant, which he called Cistus Chamcerho- 

 dodendros s. Ledum orientale, pentaneiiros, foliis brevioribiis,ferruginea et molli 

 laniigine villosis. This, according to him, is the Maha Bothya of the Ceylonese; 

 but he proposed the Katou Kadali, with doubt, as synonymous, not willing 

 entirely to contradict Commeline, and yet seeming aware of the objections to 

 his opinion. Plukenet's plant, it must be observed, is not called a Cistus 



