on the Hortus Malabaricus, Part III. 143 
his Uvifera arbor Americana convolvulacea, fructu aromatico punc- 
tato (Alm. 394; Phyt. t. 237. f. 4.), which would seem to be a 
Michelia or Magnolia. 
The younger Burman (Fl. Ind. 227.) ccs a new species 
of Ficus, which he called Grossularioides. "This consisted of two 
varieties ; and the first was a plant described by Garcin, which 
having poisonous fruit, as well as many external differences, 
would appear to be a distinct species from the second variety, 
which is the Valli Terezam. The younger Linnzus (Sup. 442.) 
would seem to have seen this latter plant, and called it Ficus 
heterophylla. M. Lamarck (Enc. Meth. ii. 499.) procured from 
M. Sonnerat specimens of a plant, which notwithstanding some 
differences, he considered as the F. heterophylla ; and, although 
he quotes the Hortus Malabaricus with doubt, he uses the descrip- 
tion contained in this work to make up a full account, joining 
what he saw in his specimens to what he found in Rheede, a 
practice that cannot fail to lead into mistakes. There is indeed 
great reason to think, on account of the hairiness, that his spe- 
cimens were like those which Dr. Roxburgh sent to Willdenow, 
and which he published under the name of Ficus repens (Sp. Pl. 
iv. 1149.). Of this, M. Poiret (Enc. Meth. Sup. ii. 648.) has 
become sensible, and he considers the Ficus heterophylla of 
M. Lamarck as the Ficus rufescens of Vahl. On my return to 
Calcutta from Ava (1796) specimens and a drawing of this, under 
the name of Ficus repens, were sent to the late Sir Joseph Banks, 
and a copy of this drawing is to be found in the library at the 
India House. I have since also lodged in the same collection 
specimens from India Proper, under the name of Ficus rufescens. 
These differ a little from the plant found in Ava; but not so 
much as to warrant their being considered as forming a distinct 
species, as will appear from the following account. 
* 
Ficus 
