248 Dr. Francis Hamilton's Commentary 



blance in its flower to that of the Rhododendron, and, in fact, I see nothing 

 in the account of its fructification to oppose the opinion of its being an Azalea; 

 and by tlie older botanists Rhododendron and Azalea were not distinguished. 

 It must, however, be confessed that the general appearance of the Modagain 

 is very different. 



Bella, sen Bela Modagam, p. 121. tab. 59. 



Plukenet was doubtful whether or not this, which Ray called a Prmilfera 

 Indica, was the Takkada of the Ceylonese (^Alm. 361.) ; but the elder Burman 

 had no doubt, and called the plant "Arbor exitiosa, marina, lactescens, Indica, 

 Takkada vocata,fructu Cerasi magnitudine, incarnato, striata" (Thes. Zeyl. 29.). 

 Burman further notices, in his observation on Rumphius {Herb. Amb. iv. 1 1 8.), 

 that his Takkada cannot be considered as different from the Buglossum lito- 

 reum {Herb. Amb. iv. 116. t. 54.) ; but although Burman considered this as the 

 same with the Bella Modagam, Rumphius only says that the two plants should 

 be compared together, and justly adds, " Malabarica vero describitur esse inon- 

 tium incola, quum nostra planta nuUibi nisi in litoribus obcurrat." Further, 

 Rheede says of the Bella Modagam, "Arbor est speciosa et prjecelsa pluri- 

 mum ;" while Rumphius says of the Buglossum litoreum, "hie frutex truncum 

 gerit brevem, incurvum, vulgo pedem crassum." 



In the Flora Zei/lanica (313.) Linnaeus mentioned a plant no doubt very 

 nearly allied to the Bella Modagam, and which he called Lobelia frutescens, 

 Joliis ovali-oblongis integerrimis, and for which he quotes no Indian authority, 

 except a drawing of Herman. This, no doubt, represented the plant that Lin- 

 naeus then meant; and the term "frutescens," which he applies to it, would 

 seem to exclude the Bella Modagam. Linnaeus at the same time, however, 

 quoted an American plant described by Plumier and Catesby, which is likely 

 different from that drawn by Herman; although in the Flora Indica (186.) 

 Burman calls the plant Lobelia Plumieri, as having been discovered by this 

 botanist. It must be also remarked, that the younger Burman does not here 

 quote the Takkada described by his father, although from the vicinity of Cey- 

 lon to Malabar, and from the similarity of their vegetable productions, it might 

 be expected to be the same with the Bella Modagam. 



It would appear that some time after this the plant of the Flora Zeylanica 



