THE POISONOUS PLANTS OF BOMBAY. 103 
of Cucumis and which appears to be analogous to the plant under 
description (J. Mitra). 
A still further confusion arises in the naming of the fruit known in 
the Konkan as Takmak. Dr. Dymock calls it C. trigonus, var. 
pubescens (vide Dr. Dymock’s Materia Medica of Western India, 
2nd Hdition, p. 339). Dr. Dymock says Takmak is less bitter than 
C. trigonus. As a matter of fact Takmak is not bitter at all, If any 
thing, it is sweetish ; if not that, it is almost insipid. It is not there- 
fore easy to find out why Takmak is considered to be a variety of 
C. trigonus. The two plants appear to me to be quite distinct. Takmak 
is edible and perfectly harmless. It is cooked asa vegetable. It can 
be eaten even uncooked, though never much valued in any condition. 
Wight and Arnott’s description of C. pubescens shows that the fruit of 
it is no bigger than about 1 or 13 inch long ; whereas the fruit of 
Takmak is often as large as a medium-sized pomelo or water-melon, 
6 inches long and 9 inches sideways ; and it is glabrous, The fruit of 
C. pubescens, on the other hand, as described by Willdenow, and 
Wight and Arnott is oval and pubescent. It is doubtful therefore whether 
Takmak could be called C. pubescens, or a variety of C. trigonus, 
Kurz separates C. iregonus with soletary peduncles from C. pubes 
cens with clustered peduncles and makes the latter a variety of Cucu~ 
mis melo, Linn, (vide Journal Asiatic Soc., 1877, Part II, page 
103). I think Kurz is right in doing so. In every way Takmak is 
more allied to C. melo than to C. trigonus. The only objection I 
have to calling Takmak C. pubescens is that the size of C. pubescens 
as described, namely, that of a partridge’s ege, is considerably smaller 
than that of the smallest sized Yakmak. On the whole, it appears 
necessary to write a fresh description of Takmak and rename it once 
for all. The present name it has been given as a pubescent variety of 
C. trigonus is morphologically inaccurate and unsatisfactory. The 
plants marked by Indian Botanists as C. pubescens are said to have 
been reduced to C. trigonus by Naudin in the Kew Herbarium. 
It is here, I believe, that the initial source of inaccuracy lay. For 
although that illustrious French Botanist can claim the credit of having 
furnished us with an exhaustive monograph on the Cucurbitaceous 
order, he has added to the confusion of synonyms in no small 
degree, 
