on the Hortus Malabaricus, Part III. 141 
judged to be his Folium politorium (Herb. Amb. iv. 198. t. 63.). 
These Burman also considered (F/. Ind. 226.) as the same spe- 
cies, which from the Javanese name he called Ficus Ampelos. 
M. Lamarck, treating of the F. Ampelos (Enc. Meth. ii. 496.), 
quotes Rumphius with doubt; on what grounds he does not say, 
but his plant has the mouth of the receptaculum so open as to 
render it an intermediate link between Ficus and Ambora; from 
which we may safely conclude that it is neither the Folium poli- - 
torium nor Teregam. On this account probably Willdenow has 
altogether omitted the Ficus Ampelos ;. and on the authority of 
Loureiro: has referred the Folium politorium to a species which- 
he calls Ficus politoria (Sp. Pl. iv. 1144.), a name which he 
should not have used, because M.. Lamarck had previously given 
it to a very different species (Enc. Meth. ii. 500.). Besides, as 
Loureiro describes the fruit to be disposed in spikes, he probably 
meant a plant different from that of Rumphius and Rheede, 
although it may have leaves fitted to polish wood ;—for such a 
^ quality is found in several species of this genus, and is there- 
fore no proof of identity. In this opinion I am confirmed by 
Dr. Roxburgh, who neglects Loureiro's quotation, and calls the 
Folium politorium, Ficus evasperata ( Hort. Beng. 66.), thinking it 
different from the Ficus Ampelos of Koenig (Hort. Beng. 103.). 
Whatever may be the case with these modern innovations, I 
have little or no doubt of the Teregam and Folium politorium 
being the same plant, and of their being the Ficus Ampelos of 
Burman. 
The name Cara-vatti, applied to this tree by the Brahmans of 
Malabar, contains both a specific and generic appellation. Cara, 
the specific name, signifies **wild;" and Vatti is a corruption of 
Vata, the Sanscrita name of the Ficus indica, a word perhaps 
derived from the same root with the Vates of the Latin, as 
under mes shade of this tree the Gymnosophists of old delivered 
their 
