– 7<supplied xmlns="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0" cert="high">.</supplied> <persName xmlns="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0" ref="https://edition-humboldt.de/H0001103 http://d-nb.info/gnd/117598275"><choice> <abbr>D<hi rendition="#sup">r</hi></abbr> <expan>Doctor</expan> </choice> Roxburgh</persName> (in flora indica inedita) regards his <lb xmlns="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0" /><name xmlns="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0" type="plant">Cactus indicus</name> as distinct from <name xmlns="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0" type="plant"><supplied cert="high">Cactus</supplied> cochinelli<g ref="#typoHyphen" /><lb break="no" />fer</name> and <name xmlns="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0" type="plant"><supplied cert="high">Cactus</supplied> Opuntia</name> and believes it (chiefly from <lb xmlns="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0" />information of its being very general, and from <lb xmlns="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0" />its having a native name) to be indigenous <lb xmlns="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0" />in <placeName xmlns="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0" ref="https://edition-humboldt.de/H0006686 https://www.geonames.org/1269750">India</placeName>: of the probability of this I have <lb xmlns="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0" />no good means of judging. <choice xmlns="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0"> <orig>but</orig> <reg>But</reg> </choice> it appears <lb xmlns="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0" />somewhat unfavourable to the opinion that <lb xmlns="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0" />there is no Sanscrit name for the plant<supplied xmlns="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0" cert="high">.</supplied>