OF THE LINNEAN HERBARIUM. 113 
There is a second specimen in thé Linnean Herbarium which is also 
called R. Blechum ; it is probably an Aphelandra, but the species is 
not determinable. 
2. R. CLANDESTINA, Linn. Sp. Pl. ed. 1753, ii. p.634. R. clandestina, 
mihi. Cryphiacanthus Barbadensis, N. ab E. l.c. p. 197.—Nees von 
Esenbeck, at p. 156 of the 11th volume of the * Prodromus," gives Cry- 
phiacanthus clandestinus as the name he adopts for Linnaus’s R. 
clandestina, but that specific term does not occur among his species 
of Cryphiacanthus. 
3. R. PANICULATA, Linn. Sp. Pl. ed. 1753, ii. p. 635. R. paniculata, 
mihi. Dipteracanthus paniculatus, N. ab E. l. c. p. 142. 
4. R. TUBEROSA, Linn. Sp. Pl. ed. 1753, ii. p. 635. R. tuberosa, mihi. 
Cryphiacanthus Barbadensis, N. ab E. 1. c. p. 197.—As appears by the 
synonymy, Nees von Esenbeck unites R. clandestina and R. tuberosa, 
Linn. Linn:us's specimens are certainly very distinct. 
5. R. TENTACULA, Linn. in Ameen. Acad. iv. p.320. Haplanthus tenta- 
culus, N. ab E. l. c. p. 513, et mihi. 
6. R. BIFLORA, Linn. Sp. Pl. ed. 1753, ii. p. 635, is an American species 
of Calophanes, but the specimen is too imperfect for identification. 
Nees von Esenbeck refers this to his Calophanes oblongifolius, DC. 
Prod. xi. p. 107. 
7. R. cnisPA, Linn. Sp. Pl. ed. 1764, ii. p. 886. Hemiagraphis crispa, 
mihi.—R. crispa, N. ab E., is quite distinct from Linneus’s species, 
though Nees considers them identical. I have seen Nees von Esen- 
beck’s species in Wight’s Herbarium ; it belongs to the small blue- 
flowered section of my remodelled genus Hemiagraphis. That sec- 
tion is very distinct from the yellow-flowered Strobilanthoid division 
of the genus, which contains species that are nearly all Eastern Asiatic 
or Malayan in their distribution, and may require to be separated 
generically from the blue-flowered Indian species. 
8. R. REPANDA, Linn. Sp. Pl. ed. 1764, ii. p. 886. R. repanda, N. ab E. 
l. c. p. 144, et mihi. 
9. R. uixGENs, Linn. Sp. Pl. ed. 1753, ii. p. 635. Hygrophila salici- 
folia, N. ab E. l.c. p. 92, et mihi.—This identification confirms 
Robert Brown's remark in the * Prodromus Flore Nove Hollandiz,' 
P- 479, under Hygrophila angustifolia. He says, * hujus congener et 
valde affinis est Ruellia ringens, Osb. et Linn. Sp. Pl. exclus. syn. 
Flore Zeylaniez et Rheed. Mal." The plant referred to by Linnzus 
in these works is probably Ruellia prostrata, Poir. Rheede’s figure 
is not x. t. 64, as cited by Linneus in the ‘Flora Zeylanica’? and 
the * Species Plantarum, but ix. t. 64. 
10. R. ANTIPODA, Linn. Sp. Pl. ed. 1753, ii. p. 635, is Bonnaya vero- 
nicefolia, Spreng. 
L2 
