100 Dr. Francis Hamilton's Commentarij 



joined it would however seem to be the same with folium ob- 

 tusum cum acumine ; but in looking at Rheede's figure there is 

 no such appearance, and the leaves of the Sijalita, as figured in 

 the IJortus Malabaricus, are more clearly marked as elUptica, 

 than those of the Songium, which are nenxXy lanceohita. On the 

 whole, after comparing the descriptions of Rheede and Rum- 

 phius with a plant very common in India, I can see no essential 

 ditterence, and therefore adhere to the opinion of Linmeus, in 

 considering the Sijalita and Sougium as one plant. AVilldenow 

 however {Sp. PI. ii. 1251, 1252.) and M. Poiret {Enc. Meth. 

 vii. 150, 151.) adopt the opinion of Thunberg, but entirely on 

 his authority, neither of them having seen the plant. 



I shall here take an opportunity of describing three Indian 

 Dillcnias, although each may have been already described ; for 

 it is of advantage to have accounts from diluèrent persons, and 

 I have deposited specimens in the library at the India House. 



1. Dillenia pentagyna. Wilhl. Sp. PL ii. 1251, Hort. Kew. 

 iii. 329. IJort. Bcng. 43. Enc. Meth. vii. 150. 

 Ban' Chalta Hindice. 

 Habitat in Indiœ aridioris sylvis. 



Arbor mediocris. Ramuli crassi, teretes, cicatricibus lunatis 

 exaspéra ti. Folia decidua, post tlores Junio erumpentia, 

 conferta, alterna, oblonga, basi acutiuscula, apice nunc ob- 

 tusa, tunc acuta, supra pilis incumbentibus aspersa, subtus 

 nuda, costata, venis minutissime reticulata, apicibus costa- 

 rum prominentibus dentata. Petiolns amplexicaulis, bre- 

 vissimus, margine membranaceo basin versus dilatatus, 

 supra concavus, non stipulaceus. 



Gemmce Jlorales supra cicatrices petiolorum anni praeteriti enatae, 

 squamosa^, pubescentes, multiflorte. Pedunculi plures, con- 

 gesti, unitiori, teretes, glabri, longitudine Horis. Bractea: 



nulliT-, 



