________________ - 17 ऋष्यप्रोक्ता ऋक्षगन्धा .............. // वृष्या प्रोक्ता वृष्यगन्धा.........। पत्र-११४ स्पृक्का स्पृर ब्राह्मणी देवी लता लकोयिका मरुत्। स्पृक्काऽसृग् ब्राह्मणी देवी मालाली कोटिका मता। पकमुष्टिः .. ........... // पञ्चमुष्टिः...... पत्र-९४ कुलिङ्गशृङ्गी वक्रा च......नताङ्गयपि। कुलीरभृङ्गी चक्रा च महाघोषा नवाङ्गिनी। चन्द्रा स्वादु विषाणी च प्रोक्ता च निजमूर्द्धजा॥ चन्दास्पदा विषाणी च शृङ्गी वनजमूर्धजा // पत्र-१०८ वृक्षकन्दा विदारी च वृक्षवल्ली बिडालिका // विदारिका पत्र-११० वृष्यकन्दा विदारी च वृष्यवल्ली बिडालिका // सिंहवृन्ता मांसमाषा पत्र-११७ सिंहविन्ना मांसमासा पृश्नपर्णी-कलशिर्धावनी गुहा / पृष्टिपर्णी-कलशी धावनी गुहा / शृगालबिन्ना धृतिला पर्णी-॥षत्र-१११ शृगालविन्नाऽबिला पर्णी च - // After having examined these few instances we find that the comme. ntator of the Nighantusesa has made drastic changes in the readings of the Dhanvantarinighantu. The question naturally arises as to why he should make such changes. Could it be that he had before him some ms. belonging to a different group ? Or, could it be that these changes are the mistakes committed by the copyist? Under the heading of Nalikera' 'talavrksa' becomes 'latavsksa'. This is certainly a blunder committed by the copyist. Under the heading of Jyotismati' we find durdina' instead of 'durjara'. At this place too the copyist has committed a mistake. Under the heading of 'Paga' we have gavam madakaram' instead of 'gurvakah khapuram'. For this change the author-and not the copyist-seems to be responsible. The commentator of the Nigbanku seems to have given the meaning of 'gurvaka' in 'gavas madakaram' and to have altogether forgotten to give the meaning of 'khapura'. In the treatment of Tulasi 'apetaraksast' has become 'apita raksasi'. For this change the copyist should be held responsible. The learned author could not write 'chardano' instead of 'chardighna'. This mistake occurs in the treatment of Kaidarya. The pen of the copyist turns 'ursya prokta' and 'ursyagandha' into 'ryapro. kla' and '?ksagandha' respectively. Under the heading of 'Sprkka' 'malali kotika mata' has been turned into 'lata laikoyika marut'. Under the heading of Sungi the copyist has written "nijamurddhaja' instead of 'vanajamurdhaja,' In the treatmeut of Vrsyakanda whose rootsnot only the roots but the entire ereeper-are vrsya (vajikarana) the copyist writes 'orksakanda' and 'orksavalla' instead of 'ursyakanda' and 'ursyavalla.
