140 Dr. Francis HAMILTON'S Commentary 
which the Teregam is quoted, applies very well in every thing 
but the fruit to the plant which I take to be the Atti Meer Alou; 
but this again is quoted by M. Poiret (Enc. Meth. Sup. ii. 654.) 
and by Dr. Roxburgh (Hort. Beng. 66.) for the Ficus excelsa. 
No species under this name is mentioned in Willdenow; yet it 
is possible, as the specific character agrees entirely with the 
plant, that this is what he calls Ficus septica (Sp. PL. iv. 1142.). 
As for this he quotes neither the authorities adopted by Burman 
(FI. Ind. 226.), his plant is probably different from Burman's. 
Specimens of the plant that I have seen are deposited in the 
library at the India House (Cat. No. 2413). 
 Hawpnrsn seu HANDUR Axou, p. 77. t. 59. 
This plant Burman (F1. Ind. 226.) joined with the Ficus septica 
of Rumphius (Herb. Amb. iii. 153. t.96.), which name he adopted ; 
and the same is done by M. Lamarck (Enc. Meth. ii. 496.), both 
no doubt following the authority of the elder Burman in the ex- 
planation of the plates in the Herbarium Amboinense. This autho- 
rity is none of the best ; and the form both of the leaves and fruit 
in the figures given by the two authors is so different, that I 
suspect they meant different plants. Willdenow was probably 
of the same opinion, as he quotes neither for his Ficus septica, 
which he took from Forster, and which, as I have said, is per- 
haps the Atti Meer Alou. I have not seen any plant which I 
could refer to the Handir Alou; but it seems to have a ve 
considerable affinity to the Ficus oppositifolia of Dr. Roxburgh, 
and some of its leaves are represented in the figure as having 
nearly a similar position. | 
TEREGAM, p. 79. t. 60. 
In treating of the Atti Meer Alou I have already mentioned 
somewhat concerning this plant, which Rumphius properly 
judged 
