624 Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal. | December, 1908. 
EBENACEA, 
112. Drospyros Kaki, Linn. f. B. P., vol.i, p. 653: ‘ Planted 
only in our area. Culti vated’ for its edible fruit.” Watt, Ec. 
Dict., vol. iii, p. 145: ‘“ Native of the Khasia Hills, Upper 
Firminger, Gardening, p. 256: “‘ Date-plum. 
Thrives well, and bears abundantly in the neighbourhood of 
Calcutta.” yes H.S. C., p. 345. Roxb., F. L., p. 412: “This 
tree is now pretty common about Caleutta. Roxburgh consi- 
found it wild in various localities in the Khasia Hills: F. B. I,, 
iii, 556. It is very probable that Diospyros Kaki reached Bengal 
roper from China; the tree seems to have been cultivated for a 
long time in Japan, China and Tonkin. 
113. Diospyros paiippensis, Desr. B. P., vol. i, p. 6 
“D. discolor, Cultivated in C. Bengal.” Watt, Ec. Dict., vol. iii, 
p. 188: “Native of the Philippine Islands.” Not mentioned in 
Firminger, Gardening, 3rd ed. Diospyros philippensis is culti- 
vated in — parts of S. E. Asia, in Mauritius, the Seychelles, 
and in Brazi 
APOCYNACER. 
114. Kaaeruns a caTHaRtica, Linn. B.P., vol. ii, p. 667: 
. pho in garden occasionally naturalised in C. and E. 
Watt, Ec. Dict, vol. i, p. 168: “ Run wild i in the tidal 
: a, 4 
28: “This shrub was introduced from Guiana into India in 
ioe, and is now very common in gardens.” Roxb., Hort. Beng., 
e original home of this species extends from Brazil to 
Geieal America and the West Indies. 
5. THEvetiA NERUFOLIA, Juss. B. P., vol. ii, p. 669: “In 
rdens in all the provinces.” Voigt., H.8.C., p. 531: “ New 
Granada, etc. Domesticated about Serampore.” ‘Tt is indigenous 
in North, Central, and South America from Mexico and the 
Antilles to Brazil. Roxburgh does not mention the plant. 
116. Puiu 1 
UMIERA ACUTIFOLIA, Pozret. .B. P., vol. ii, p- end 
‘* Planted everywhere in gardens and near temples.” Watt, Ec. 
om vol. 1, 297: “ Dr. Hove in 1787 found the ‘tree 
wing siesta on Malabar Hill.” Voigt., H.S.C., p. 528: 
se E Cultivated in China, India, the Molnceas, etc., where it is 
thoroughly domesticated. It is, however, no doubt, with the 
other Plumieras a native of §. America or the W. Indies.” F. B. 
L., iii, p. 641. Roxb., F. 1, p. 248: “This very elegant, small 
tree does not appear to be a native of this part of India, I have 
only found it in gardens; but there it is very common, which 
shows it to be of considerable ei: ” This species is almost 
c y a native of Mexico 
117. Ravwo.rra CANESCENS, Linn. B. P., vol. p. 
671: 
a ney cultivated and at times naturalised. ects of West- 
Indies.” Noigt, H. S. C., p. 532: “ Jamaica,” Indigenous in the 
Antilles and on the neighbouring South American Main. 

a a eT 
