on the Horfus Malabaricus, Part 111. 99 



Syalita, p. 39. tab. 38, 39- 



I suspect that Rlieede has here made a transposition of 

 names, and that the IMahibars call this tree Kar/nbalapala, 

 while it is the Brahmans who call it SjjaJita ; for these persons 

 usually seem to employ Ilindwi names ; and Chalta, evidently 

 the same with Si/alita, is the name used in the North of India. 

 Besides, Kariubalapala savours of Malabar barbarism. 



Strange to say, Plukenet {jMaiit. 124.) confounded this with 

 the Artocarpus of the islands in the Pacific Ocean, and gave an 

 account from Dampier very applicable to the Artocarpus, but 

 totally at variance Avitli that of Rheede. We may presume, 

 therefore, that he knew neither plant except from the descrip- 

 tions of the authors quoted. Ray gave the Syalita a new name ; 

 but, as usual with Indian plants, borrowed all that he says from 

 Rheede. 



Rumphius (Herb. Amb. ii. 141. t. 45.) described what he calls 

 Songium ; and Burman in the annexed observation considers 

 this, if not quite the same, as at least a species of the same 

 genus ; although Rumphius himself rather considered his Son- 

 gius as being the same with the SijaVtta. In this however he 

 was evidently mistaken, as the Songius has several liowers on 

 each pedunculus. In the first edition of the Species Flantariim, 

 therefore, Linnecus without any doubt united the Songium and 

 Si/alita, under the name of Dilknia indica {Burm. Fl. Ind. 124.). 

 Thunberg, however, (Linn. Trans, i. 200.) considered them as 

 distinct species, calling the Si/alifa, Dillenia speciosa, and the 

 Songium, D.elliptica ; but the only difference, which he marks, 

 is, that the former has folia oblonga, rotundato-acula, while the 

 latter has folia elliptico-ovata, acuta. These difterences are not 

 well defined ; and I must confess myself unable to comprehend 

 what a folium rotundato-acutum means. From the notes sub- 



o 2 joined 



