COMMENTARY ON 
Bilacus Madia Pissang, p. 1 99. 
Whether this be a mere variety of the Mgle marmelos, 
or a different species, I cannot take upon myself to say. 
As I have ah-eady mentioned, the fruit C, in table 81, can 
scarcely have been meant to represent that of this plant, 
which has a fruit like that of the Musa, at least in external 
shape. 
Caput LXIX. 
Bilacus taurinus, p. 199, t. 82 ? 
It seems strange that Rumphius should say, flores ig- 
noti mihi hactenus sunt," and that, notwithstanding this, 
they should be fully represented in the 82d plate, which 
in the explanation is called Bilacus taurinus. I am there- 
fore inclined to think, that the plate may represent the fol- 
lowing plant, the more especially as it has no thorns. In 
this case, the fruit A, table 81 , as stated in the explana- 
tion of that figure, may, in fact, represent the Bilacus tau- 
rinus, which, on this supposition^ would be a mere variety 
of the iEgle marmelos, and the most common form indeed, 
which this tree assumes in the Gangetic provinces ; and, 
according to Rheede, it is the Slymappel of the Dutch, 
which is the Covalam of Malabar. It must, however, be 
confessed, that the interior structure of the fruit, as I have 
described it, agrees entirely with that of the Bilacus tellor^ 
as given by Rumphius; but not at all with that of the 
Bilacus taurinus, which has only four or five seeds in each 
fruit, in which circumstance, also, it by no means agrees 
with table 82. 
Bilacus Amboinensis silvestris, p. 200, t. 82 ? 
For the reasons mentioned in the Commentary preced- 
ing, I suspect that this is the plant represented in table 82, 
