362 
COMMENTARY ON 
I must notwithstanding say, that the figure of Rumphius 
has httle or no resemblance to that of the Inocarpus edulis 
given by Gasrtner (De Sem, iii, 114, t. 199, SOO), and still 
less to that given in the Encyclopedic (III. Gen. t. 
I suspect therefore some mistake, and this perhaps in the 
figure of Rumphius, which in some respects does not agree 
with his description ; for he says of the fruit, " forma lunse 
crescentis,'" which agrees somewhat with that of Geertner, 
but by no means with that in the Herbarium Amboinense. 
Burman in his observation seems totally wrong in compar- 
ing either description or drawing to the Tani of the Hor- 
tus Malabaricus (iv. 1. 10), which is no doubt a Terminalia, 
or Myrobalanus. 
Caput LVI, 
Atunus, p. 171, t. 66. 
The Compiler of the Encyclopedic (i. 829), in mention- 
ing this tree, does not venture to point out its place in the 
system. If it belong to the same genus with the Atunus 
litorea (iii. 95), I suspect that it may be a Niota, as I shall 
endeavour to point out on a future occasion. 
Atun Piiti, p. 172. 
This has pinnated leaves, while the preceding tree has 
them simple. They probably therefore belong to different 
genera. 
Caput LVII. 
Vidoricum domesticiim, p. ] 78. 
Vidoricum silvestre priraum, p. 173, t. 67. 
These trees probably belong to the same genus ; and if 
Gaertner (De Sem. ii. 105) is right in considering the Vi- 
