140 J)r. Francis Hamilton's Co?«we7;/fl/?/ 



which the Teregam is quoted, applies very well in every thing 

 but the fruit to the plant which 1 take to be the Atli Men- Alou ; 

 but this again is quoted by M. Poiret {Enc. Mith. Sup. ii. 6o4.) 

 and by Dr. Roxburgh {Ilort. Bc?ig. 66.) for the Ficus cxceha. 

 No species under this name is mentioned in AVilldenow ; yet it 

 is possible, as the specific character agrees entirely with the 

 plant, that this is what he calls Ficus sept tea {Sp. Fl. iv. 114'2.), 

 As for this he quotes neither the authorities adopted by Burman 

 {Fl. fiid. 226.), his plant is probably diiierent from Burman's. 

 Specimens of the plant that I have seen are deposited in the 

 library at the India House {Cat. No. 2413). 



Handii; seu Handuii Alou, p. 77- /. oQ. 

 This plant Burman {Fl. Inch 226.) joined with the Ficus septica 

 of Rumphius {Herb. Amb. iii. 1,33. /. 96.), which name he adopted ; 

 and the same is done by M. Lamarck {FjUc. ]\Ict/i. ii. 4y6".), both 

 no doubt following the authority of the elder Ikirman in the ex- 

 planation of the plates in the Herbarium Amboiueitse. 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 ditierent plants. Willdenow was probably 

 of the same opinion, as he (juotes neither for his Ficus septica, 

 which he took from Forster, and which, as J have said, is per- 

 haps the Atti Meer Alou. I have not seen any plant which 1 

 could refer to the Handir Alou ; but it seems to have a very 

 considerable affinity to the Ficus opposilifolia of Dr. Roxburgh, 

 and some of its leaves are represented in the figure as having 

 nearly a similar position. 



Teuegam,/;. 79- ^.60. 

 In treating of the Atti Meer Alou I have already mentioned 

 somewhat concerning this plant, which Rumphius properly 



judged 



