80 D)\ Francis Hamilton's Cojnmentary 



the case in this instance with Phikenet {Aim. Ill .), who adopts 

 the name given by Ray, Palma montana folio plicatile ftahelliformi 

 maximo, semel tantum frugifera : nor does he quote any syno- 

 nyma except the Hortus Malabaricus. 



The elder Biirman {Tlies. Zeyl. 181 .) borrowed from Hermann 

 the name Palma zeylanica, folio longissimo et latissimo, by no 

 means so characteristic as that of Ray ; for, as I have said, in 

 its full growth the leaves are not remarkably larger than those 

 of the Borassiis. 



Rumphius (Herb. Amh. i.44.) compared the leaves of the Codcla 

 Panna with those of his Saribus, but says " verum tantum dift'ert 

 ut diversa sit habenda species." (See my Commentary on the 

 Herbarium Amboinense.) Notwithstanding what Rumphius had 

 properly observed, Linnœus in the Flora Zeylanica (394.) joined 

 the Saribus with the Codcla Panna to form his Cori/pha : but it 

 was probably the latter that he meant to describe, as we have no 

 reason to believe that the Saribus is found in Ceylon. In the 

 Species Plantarum and Burman's Flora Indica (240.) no change 

 took place, except giving to the Corypha the specific name um- 

 braculifera, and without any good reason omitting some of the 

 synonyma. Gœrtner continued the error ; nor do I know which 

 of the fruits he described. 



After this long continuance of error, the difference between 

 the Saribus and Codda Panna was pointed out by M. Lamarck 

 (Enc. Meth. ii. 130.), who considered the latter as the Corypha 

 mnbraculifera, and in this has been followed by Willdenow. [Sp. 

 PL ii. 201.) 



NiTi Panna, p. 1 . 



There is no figure of this plant, and the description is so im- 

 perfect that little dependence can be placed on such conjectures 

 as I can offer. It is probably a palm growing in or close by the 

 rivers of Malabar ; and as the description says, " folia Palma; 



foliis, 



