276 A COMMENTARY ON THE SECOND BOOK 
error, in distinguishing the A, prcestantissimum and A. 
qfficmarum.j as two species, for the Chinese speak decidedly 
on both the Calamhac and Garo coinamense being the pro- 
duce of one tree. This is confirmed by the circumstance, 
that the Mogul kings of Delhi, the most powerful and 
splendid monarchs of the East, were supplied with this 
precious drug (and no doubt they had the best possible), 
from the eastern mountains of Camrupa, where it is called 
Jgal or Agar, from whence the Agallochum of the ancients 
is no doubt derived. This tree I have found, and I have 
sent specimens to the India-House, as the Agallochum of- 
ficinaricm, being, no doubt, the tree procured from Son- 
nerat, as any one may be convinced by comparing M. La- 
marck's description with mine. It is, however, by no 
means the Agallochum secundarium malaccense represented 
by Rumphius in the tenth plate of this volume, as I shall 
afterwards show. 
Some ignorant European traders, from the resemblance 
of the name Agal to Aquila^ Aigle, or Eagle, called the 
drug by these names in Portuguese, French, and English ; 
and our botanists have preferred Aquilaria, a name derived 
from this absurd mistake, to the name Agallochum, known 
from the earliest times, and probably derived from Agal, 
the name of the tree, and Lochun, the brains. This was 
done under pretence of Linnaeus having already bestowed 
Agallochum on the Arbor eocccscans of Rumphius ; but the 
great Swede seems to have had a suspicion that Ray was 
mistaken, and therefore only used Agallochum as a specific 
term, leaving it free to others to employ it as the generic 
name for the true plant, when it should be discovered. On 
this account I have preferred M. Lamarck's name, Agal- 
lochum officinarum to Iiis Aquilaria malaccensis, or to the 
Aquilaria Agallocha of Roxburgh (Hort. Beng, 33), which 
is the same plant, and shall be here described. 
