130 Dr. Francis HamiLron’s Commentary 
seen. M. Poiret ( Enc. Meth. iv. 416; Sup. iv. 56 ) it must be 
allowed makes no distinction. The plant of Dr. Roxburgh 
(Hort. Beng. 41.) is that of Rumphius. Whether or not he 
ever saw that of Rheede I know not, but he does not quote the 
Hortus Malabaricus. : 
Kappa Mava, p. 65. tab. 54. 
In my Commentary on the great work of Rumphius (Herb. 
Amb. i. 177.) I have said all that seems necessary on this sub- 
ject. 
Irri Arr Arov, p. 69. t. 55. 
Commeline justly considered this as a Ficus. The Malabar - 
name implies that the tree is an Are Alou (Ficus religiosa, Lin. 
Trans. xiii. 487.), having a resemblance to the Itti or Itty Alou 
. (Ibid. 486.), which is perhaps the Ficus Benjamina of M. La- 
marck (Enc. Meth. ii. 493.). The generic name Goli, given to 
this tree as well as to the Itti Alou by the Brahmans of Malabar, 
is probably the same with the Gular of the Hindwi dialect, given 
to several lici. The word Douadeke prefixed seems to imply 
that its branches abound with milky juice. | 
Rumphius at first (Herb. Amb. iii. 140.) confounded the Itty 
Alou with his Varinga parvifolia; but, as I have mentioned in 
treating of that plant, this was an error; the I tty Alou bearing its 
figs on stalks, while those of the Varinga parvifolia are sessile ; 
and, in fact, Rumphius was afterwards (Append. iii. 142.) sen- 
sible that he should have quoted the Itti Are Alou. On this 
account I should have considered Burman correct in quoting 
the Itti Are Alou (by the Latin name of Commeline) for the 
Varinga parvifolia (Herb. Amb. iii. 142. in tabule explanatione), 
were it not that Rumphius says, * fructus formam Grossulorum 
referentes, inferius nempe angustati, superius rotundi," which in 
the Linnæan language would be fructus obovati ; while Rheede 
describes 
