tm the Hortus Malabaricus, Part IV. 219 



pulpiferus, his name for the genus Melastoma ; but he uses the term Cistus 

 Ckamccr/iodockndros, implying probably its having a capsule like the Rhodo- 

 dendron, and therefore its being an Oshechia or Rhexia. But further, his plant 

 is in fact only called pentaneuros by mistake; for in the figure referred to 

 {Phyt. ;. 161.y. 2.), it is represented with seven nerves, and in the Phytographia 

 is called Cistus Chamcerhododendros heptaneuros. It is therefore as different 

 from the Katoii Kadali, as that is from the Kadali. 



M. Desrousseaux, however, {Enc. 3Idth. iv. 36.) seems to have entertained no 

 doubt that the plant of Plukenet was the same with the Katou Kadali, and 

 seems to consider them as the same with the M. Malahathrica, although he 

 quotes them with doubt. If, indeed, it is insisted on that Rheede must have 

 described the M. Malahnthricn, then the only plant of his, that we can con- 

 sider as such, must be the Katou Kadali, on which account I quoted it in the 

 catalogue of specimens presented to the India House ; but I am now con- 

 vinced that the M. Malahathrica is not described in the Hortus Malabaricus, 

 and that the Katou Kadali has not yet been properly introduced into the 

 modern system of botany. 



TsjEROU Kadali p. 93. tah. 44. 



Commeline justly remarks, that this is also a species of Cistus, in the sense 



then adopted by botanists, that is, it is a Melastoma. Plukenet (Mant. 49.) 



called it " Cistus orientaUs pulpifer, Jujuhinis foliis trinerviis, capsula parva." 



I cannot, however, discover that the Tsjerou Kadali has been mentioned by 



any subsequent writer. 



Oepata, p. 95. tab. 45. 



Commeline is uncertain whether this may not be the Anacardium, meaning, 

 no doubt, the A. orientale, and the seed of the Oepata has, no doubt, a certain 

 resemblance to that nut ; but even the fruits are entirely different in structure, 

 uor have the trees any aflBnity. Plukenet, however, quoted the Oepata among 

 the synonyma of the A. orientale {Aim. 28.). Linnaeus continued in the same 

 error, calling this plant Avicennia {Fl. Zeyl. 57-), for he perceived that it could 

 not belong to the same genus with the Kapa Mava or Arajou of the West 

 Indies, to which he had given the generic name Anacardium. Along with the 

 Oepata, however, he quoted for his Avicennia the true Anacardium or A. ori- 



VOL. XVII. 2 G 



