And further, as to the derivation of this name, we read that a Brahmin, having married Bhoom Deo (the earth-god), had two sons, one of whom, Bukshun, married Soormut, and had a son called Pootur (or son), who married Patlee, the daughter of the king of the Singhaldees. In the case of Hindoos, the men do not take their fathers' names. Supposing that these joined their names, we have Pootur-patlee, which will not answer, because the young man calls himself Patlee-pootur, taking the wife's name, which is contrary to Hindoo usage. The story states further, that Patlee-pootur planted his staff, and a beautiful city sprang out of the ground, which in honour of his wife he called Patleepoora, or Patleepooturpoora, a name truly royal in its length! The pair died, leaving a son called Puttum, and a daughter named Putnie, from whom the modern name Patna is said to have been derived. In the absence of more definite evidence we may rest a strong presumption on these traditions, and whatever part of them we may accept or reject, they certainly contain some amount of historical evidence to prove that Pataliputra must not be confounded with Palibothra. In the eleventh century a play is supposed to have been written, the Mudra Rakshasha, the principal scenes in which are laid at Pataliputra, the capital of Chundragupta. Buchanan[82] says, that other traditions preserved in the Skund Poorana derive the name of Patna from the Sanscrit word meaning _a cloth_; from the circumstance of the goddess Parbuttee having dropt her mantle on the spot, in her flight to Kylas (the sky). So much with respect to the derivation of the names Patna and Pataliputra. From what has been stated, it may be clearly seen that Palibothra cannot be a corruption or modification of Pataliputra, and that the modern name of Patna is traceable to a very remote period. To proceed with the proof that Patna is not the ancient Palibothra:--An opinion has been expressed by one who appears to be a competent judge, Mr. E.C. Ravenshaw,[83] that the distance from Patna at which the Sone now runs into the Ganges is so great that it cannot be said to be at the point of confluence, and therefore does not answer to Arrian's description as before quoted.