90 Dr. Francis Hamilton's Commentai-i/ 



Anona Maram, I). 23. tab. 30. 31. 

 In the Commentary on the Ilerbarium Amboinense (i. 136.), 

 when treating of the Anona, I have said all that occurs to me 

 as necessary concerning this plant. From a slight resemblance 

 in the fruit, this and the preceding tree have been erroneously 

 classed by the Brahmans of Malabar with the Artocarpus in the 

 genus Fonossou. 



Ansjeli,^. 25. tab. 32. 



In the Commentary above mentioned (i. 109.), when treating 

 of the Angchjquen, I have mentioned all that appears necessary 

 concerning this tree, which the Brahmans most properly class 

 with the Artocarpus or Fonossou, giving this the specific name 

 Fata (small), which in the plate is wrongly engraved Fala. 



Katou Tsjaka, p. 29. tab. 33. 



This is the plant which I mentioned in the Commentary on 

 page 17 as having been considered by the natives as belonging 

 to the same genus with the Artocarpus integrifolia ; no doubt a 

 very rude arrangement, as Commeline in his subjoined note 

 remarks. 



Plukenet formed a much more accurate conjecture {Aim. 47. 

 & 203.) in classing it with his Arbor Americana triphylla, f'ructu 

 Flatani quodammodo cemulante (P/iyt. t. 77- /• 4.) -, which in 

 another place (Aim. 336.) he calls Scabiosa dendroides Ameri- 

 cana, ternis foliis circa caulem ambientibus, fioribus oc/irolcucis, 

 which is the Cep/ialanthusoccidcntalis. Linnaeus accordingly in 

 the Flora Zeylanica, 53, called this plant the Cephalanthus foliis 

 oppositis. He afterwards, however, considered that its having 

 five stamina was a ground suthcient for separating it from the 

 Cephalanthus, which has only four; and therefore in the first 

 edition of the Species Flantarum he called it Nauclea orientalis, in 



which 



