320 
COMMENTARY ON 
Sagus sylvestris, p. 75. 
This species has not been taken up by any author that 
I have seen. 
Sagus loKgissima, p. 75. 
This is the Sagus farinifera of Gaertner (De Sem.ii.l86), 
and of the Encyclopedie (vi. 394), a name not so well cho- 
sen as that of Rumphius ; for sago is not a farina, and, if 
it were, this species produces the worst sago of any enume- 
rated by Rumphius. On this account, it is probably not 
the Metroxylon sagu of Rottbol, who, according to the 
Hortus Kewensis (v. 281), meant the Sagus ^e-wm/za. 
Sagus Isevis, p. 76. 
This name Dr Roxburgh (Hort. Beng. 68) has changed 
to Sagus spinosa^ an alteration not for the better, as all the 
four kinds mentioned by Rumphius are spinous. I do not 
find this plant taken up by any other recent author. 
Caput XIX. 
Sagus filaris, p. 84, t. 19. 
This would seem to belong to a different genus from the 
four species of Sagus described by Rumphius in the two 
preceding chapters. 
Bisula, p. 85. 
A palm resembling the Lontarus sylvestris already men- 
tioned, and therefore nearly allied to the Corypha, Licualia, 
and Borassus; but nothing is said to enable us to judge to 
which it is most nearly alhed, except that its fruit, being 
compared to that of the Pinanga (Areca) or Betel-nut, 
probably contains only one nut, and it therefore should not 
be a Borassus. 
