328 
COMMENTAllY ON 
adult plants are entire. The names integrvfol'ia and hetero- 
pliylla are therefore ill applied to any particular species. 
If, however, the Artocarpus lieterophylla be really a dis- 
tinct species^ the plant of Rumphius is wrong quoted in the 
Encyclopedic (iii. 209), and I have no doubt is identically 
the same with the Tsjaca Maram of the Hortus Malabari- 
cus (iii. 17, t. S6, 27, 28) ; nor does it form even a variety, 
as Willdenow would have it (Sp. PL iv. 189). The dif- 
ferent species mentioned by Rumphius are the real varie- 
ties which occur in this, as well as in all other plants, that 
are much cultivated. 
Burman, in his observation on this plant, I suppose, is 
in an error, when he refers to the Waal mendya of Her- 
man as beinsc the same. I believe there can be little doubt 
of the Waal menchja being the Grewia orientalis (Lin. FL 
Zeyl. 324). In the Supplement to the Encyclopedic (v. 
619) is some farther account of this tree^ under the name 
Choopada. The proposal of Gsertner and Commerson to 
place this tree in a separate genus from the Bread-fruit-tree 
seems to me unnecessary, and to rest upon circumstances 
too minute, where the number of species is moderate, the 
plants nearly resembling each other in general appearance, 
and the characters distinguishing from other genera clearly 
marked. 
Caput XXVI. 
Saccus arboreus minor, p. 107, t. 31. 
The Compilers of the Encyclopedic (iii. 210) consider 
this as a variety of the Artocarpus Jaca, in which they are 
followed by Willdenow (Sp. PI. iv. 189) ; but there is rea- 
son to think that it is a very distinct species, the pubescence 
on the leaves, and the different forms of the amenta, being 
sufficient marks of distinction. I have, however, never seen 
any plant that I could refer to this species. 
