32l6 A COMMENTARY ON THE SECOND BOOK 
CAP. XLVIL 
Radix DEiPARiE Malaccensis, p. 124. t. 39. 
Burman, in his annexed observation, considered this as a 
Rhamnus ; nor has any subsequent author quoted it ; but 
I understood that Dr Roxburgh considered it as his Gme- 
lina villosa (Hort. Beng. 46), although it is not quoted, 
and although in the G. villosa, which I saw in the Botani- 
cal Garden at Calcutta, from whence I have sent speci- 
mens to the India-House, I observed no leaves lobed, as 
some of those in the figure are. In other respects, how- 
ever, it agrees sufficiently, and, coming from the vicinity 
of Malacca, is probably the same. There can, I think, be 
no doubt, at any rate, of the Radiai Deipartz being a 
Gmelina. 
Radix Deipar^ Celebica Lowara dicta, p. 125. 
From the large size and hardness of the wood in this 
tree, it is probably the Gmelina arhorea (Hort. Beng. 46) 
or Cumbulu of Rheede (Hort. Mai. i. 75, Lin. Trans, xiii. 
511.), specimens of which I have sent to the India-House. 
Radix Dbipaji^ silvestriSj p. 126. 
This is probably the same species with the plant of Ma- 
lacca, that is the Gmelina villosa^ but has no extraordi- 
nary virtues ascribed to it, as it grows in places not reckon- 
ed holy. 
CAP. XLVIII. 
Radix Deipar^ spuria, p. 127- torn. i. t. 40. 
In the Commentary on the Jamhosa sllvestris parvifolia 
(H. A. i. p. 129.)? I ^^y^ already mentioned the mistakes 
