130 Dr. Francis Hamilton's Commentarij 



seen. M. Poiret {Enc. Meth. iv. 4l6 ; Sup. iv. 5Q ) 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 



Hort us Malabar icus. 



Kappa Mava, p. Go. tab. 54. 



In my Commentary on the great work of Rumphius {Herb. 

 Amb. i. 177.) I have said all that seems necessaiy on this sub- 

 ject. 



Itti Are Alou, 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 Itti/ Alou 

 (Ibid. 486.), which is perhaps the Ficus Benjnmina 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 lîrahmans of Malabar, 

 is probably the same with the Gulnr of the Ilindwi dialect, given 

 to several Fici. The word Douadeke prefixed seems to imply 

 that its branches abound with milky juice. 



Rumphius at first {Herb. Amb. in. 140.) confounded the Itti/ 

 Alou with his J^aringa parvifolia ; but, as I have mentioned in 

 treating of that plant, this was an error ; the Ittij Alou bearing its 

 figs on stalks, while those of the Variiiga parvifolia are sessile ; 

 and, in fact, Rumphius was afterwards {Append, iii. 142.) sen- 

 sible that he should have quoted the //// 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 tabulœ cxplanatione), 

 were it not that Rumphius says, " fructus formam Grossulorum 

 referentes, inferius nempe angustati, superius rotundi," which in 

 the Linnaean language would be fructus obovati ; while Rheede 



describes 



