________________ the Fifth Act of PD. He has rightly concluded that it is the same as the Lamakayananka. Now the problem is who was this Lamakayana and what or in which way his role was so important as to give that character's name to the Act ? Raghavan's remark and Warder's statement that Lamakayana brings Nandayanti, in the forest, news of Samudradatta, looses support in view of the correct reading kurvalaya instead in that passage (Krisnamoorthy's edtion) which makes it certain that it was doorkeeper Kuvalaya who performed that task. From the citation given on ND. p. 110, we know that one Alambayana knew with certainty, that the son borne to Nandayanti was by her husband. It may be that this Alambayana was first to meet Nandayanti when she was abandoned in the forest and he arranged for her shelter at the Sabarasenapati's abode. Secondly the person whom Nandayanti had feasted is called simply Brahmana. Therefore the question arises what was the role of Lamakayana, over and above those of the Brahmana and Alambayana in the Fifth Act? I may hazard a suggestion - it is obviously speculative. That is simply a scribal corruption of 311616TT. In the early Nagari script, in an old MS. with slightly damaged writing, the slightly damaged 371 can be read as GT, nas and an as dit. In that case the name of the Fifth Act would be 31aphic, which would be in keeping with what little we know. The reading A CAPRIC could be just result of scribal confusion. 2. Significance of the title Puspadusitaka. Kuntaka under 4,24 mentions the Puspadusitaka also along with the Abhijnana-sakuntala, Mudraraksasa, Maya-puspaka and others as a drama which has a title that is not just referential but has suggestive beauty. But from the few slight fragments, critical comments and the bare outline that we have, the title Puspadusitaka remains unexplained. Now we know that the sight of the constellations Tisya i.e. [22]