on the Hortus Malabaricus, Part I. 527 



Tin da Pari; a, p. 87. Jig, 48. 



By mistake quoted in the letter-press as 49. 



This is the Morns indica of Linnams, who, when be established 

 the species in the Flora Zeylanica (33?.), quoted thi> almost alone 

 the plant of Commelin being the same, and the quotation from 

 Burman (Thes. Zeyl. 47.) throwing no light on the subject. Lin- 

 naeus, however, was quite mistaken in supposing tin- figure in 

 Rheede to represent the female tree; it is no doubt the male. 

 with the flowers collected in little capitula, and the stamina ex- 

 panding: but with great propriety Rheede adds a separate figure 

 of the fruit. It seems to have been these male capitula, taken 

 for the female tiower, that induced Linnaus to consider this as 

 a Morus; but the description of the fruit ought to have convinced 

 him that the plant could not belong to that genus. 



In the younger Burman (17. Ind. 198.) we find an addition 

 made to the synonyma by introducing a real Morns indica de- 

 scribed by Rumphius (Herb. Atnb. vii. 9- t, 5.), but totally dif- 

 ferent from the Tinda Pan/a. The Morns indica continues in 

 the same state in TVilldenow (Sp. PI. iv. 378.) and in the Ency- 

 clopedic Mcthodique (iv. 378.), only the latter quotes Loureiro, 

 who certainly meant the Morns indica of Rumphius, as he men- 

 tions silk-worms being fed on its leaves, and the fruit being 

 eaten ; to neither of which purposes was the Tin da Parua ever 

 applied. There is even reason to suppose that AVilldenow meant 

 the Morus of Rumphius, and not the Tinda Parua, as he says 

 that the plant, of which he had seen specimens, resembled the 

 Morus alba. As however the Morus indica of Rumphius com- 

 prehends two species, both equally entitled to the specific appel- 

 lation, and as the Tinda Parua is not a Morus, the name should 

 be altogether abandoned. 



Dr. Koenig, under the name Trophis cspera, described one of 



3 y 2 the 



