354 
COMMENTARY ON 
of the Ency eloped ie, and quotes both without any doubt 
of the plants they describe being the same ; yet I suspect 
that the plant of Rumphius is not different from the Psi- 
dium decaspermum of Willdenow (Sp. PI. ii. 958), which 
Forster considered as a distinct genus, in which he is sup- 
ported by Gsertner, the former calling it Decaspermum fru- 
ticosum (Gen. Nov. N. 37), and the latter Nehtris /aw&o- 
sella (De Sem= i. 135, t. f. 5). 
Caput XLIV. 
Papaja Mas et Femiiia, p. 145, t. 50, 51. 
Ever since the time of Linnaeus this plant has been 
called Carica papaya ; nor does any commentary seem to 
be required. 
Papaja silvestris, p. 149, t. 53, f. 1. 
This is quoted by Willdenow (Sp. PL ii. 549) as the 
Bergera Koenigii; but I agree with the Compiler of the 
Encyclopedic (Sup. i. 6S0) in thinking them very different 
plants. From the description of the fruit in Rumphius, 
" post flosculos sequuntur fructus, qui pallidas et rotundse 
sunt baccae, minores granis Oryzse, superius planse, ibique 
for mantes coronulam ex quinque filamentis reflexis compo- 
sitam, ac ipsis baccis plane incumbentibus, in qua albicans 
siccaque locatur medulla in quinque loculos divisa," I in- 
fer^ that the fruit is " bacca pentasperma, calyce penta- 
phyllo coronata which, together with its habit, persuades 
me that the plant belongs to the order of the Aralise. 
Papaja litorea, p. 150, t. 52. 
This also seems evidently to me to be a plant of the or- 
der of Arahae, and M. Poirct (Enc. Meth. v. i.) considers 
it as a species of Panax ; but this seems doubtful, as no= 
