316 
COMMENTARY ON 
propriety, considered this as not belonging to any Linngean 
genus, and, adopting one of the names used by Rumphius, 
called it Saguerus Rumphii ; which I think preferable to 
the name Arenga given to it by Labillardiere (Enc. Meth. 
Supp. i. 441), and probably derived from Aren of the 
Japanese. 
Arbor Tsiang, p. 63. 
This palm, Rumphius says, has an appearance interme- 
diate between the Saguerus and Saribus, one having pin- 
nated, and the other fan-shaped leaves. On this account, 
it may be perhaps considered as nearly allied to the Levis- 
tonia of Brown (Nov. Holl. i. 267). 
Caput XIV. 
Segiiaster major, p. 64, t. 14. 
This is usually quoted by botanists for the Caryota 
urens ; but, in my Commentary on the First Part of the 
Hortus Malabaricus, I have expressed a doubt whether 
this be the same with the Schunda pana^ and to that Com- 
mentary I must here refer. 
Caput XV. 
Seguaster minor, p. 67, t. 15. 
I do not find that any modern botanist quotes this palm ; 
and Burman in his Commentary seems quite wrong in con- 
sidering it as a Caryota, as it has simply pinnated leaves. 
It is more probably an Areca, and seems in particular very 
nearly allied to the Areca hiimilis of Willdenow, which has 
been already mentioned in this Commentary. It would 
appear that each fruit has only one seed, otherwise, from 
the form of the leaves, I should have thought that it be- 
longed to the same genus with what Dr Roxburgh (Hort. 
Beng, 68) called Wrightia caryotoides ; and as the two 
