146 Dr. Francis HamiLToN’s Commentary 
laterales inseruntur, glandulam habent parvam planam, 
quam in Ava non innotui. Fructus maturus magnitudine 
Grossulariæ ovatus, flavus, ore sæpius quinquedentato. 
"This last plant, on account of the erectness of the stem, comes 
nearest the Valli Teregam, from which it differs chiefly in being 
rougher and in having smaller fruit; but I must confess that 
these appear to me slight circumstances for establishing distinct _ 
species. | 
Willdenow, wishing perhaps to avoid the ambiguity of two 
plants having been named Ficus heterophylla, abandoned this 
name altogether; and for the plant so named by the younger 
Linnzus, that is, the Valli Teregam, adopts Koenig's specific - 
name aquatica (Sp. Pl. iv. 1133.), which leads me rather to 
suspect that his specimens belonged to the plant which I have 
called Ficus denticulata ; for this grows in places which are 
occasionally inundated: but Rheede says that the Valli Tere- 
gam grows in woods. It must be also observed, that Willdenow 
did not see the figs of his plant, on the form of which the diffe- 
rence between the Ficus denticulata and the Valli Teregam chiefly 
depends. M. Poiret however (Enc. Meth. Sup: ii. 648:), and 
_ Dr, Roxburgh (Hort. Beng. 65.) retain the name heterophylla 
. for the Valli Teregam, the Ficus heterophylla of M. Lamarck 
being by M. Poiret called Ficus rufescens. 
. On the whole, the Ficus denticulata, F. repens, and F. aquatica 
are distinguished by circumstances of no great consequence ; 
and perhaps the F. truncata of Willdenow (Sp. Pl. iv. 1132.) is 
not very materially different ; and all are nearly connected with 
the F. Grossularioides of Burman, now almost forgotten ( Enc. 
Meth. Sup. ii. 657.), although it was the species first introduced 
into the modern system of botany. 
= 
TsJELA, 
