cases, M. latebrom, Boxh., should appear in the synonymy, *= 

 Eoxburgh's name cannot properly be appended to a species ot a 

 genus not constituted till 1847),' the same as already quoted m 

 the synonymy of H. hirta at p. 146 of the ' Prodromus.' I 1^^^^ 

 not had an opportunity of examining all the specimens referre 

 to by K"ees as belonging to this so-called species oiKeinigrapliis ; 

 but the following Wallichian numbers, which he cites, belong to 

 S. elegans, in all the Herbaria I have had access to, A\ all ta • 

 23S3, 2394 & 2395. Wight's figure in the Icones, 1504, is a 

 very good illustration of this species, though Wight refers it 

 U. latchrosa, Xees. 



3. H. RUPESTRis, T. J«6/er5.— Suellia rupestris et R. ebracteolatfl, 



Dalz. in Hook. Journ, of Bot. ii. p. 342. 

 Hab^ In Malabar et Concan, Law\^ Stocksl, DabelL 





4G2 DR. T. a:nderson o^ ixdia^nt acanthace.^. 



. Hub, Tn montosis Malabar et Concan, StocJ^s], Law\, Gibson \; in 

 planitie Maisor, Clegliorn ! 



+ 



2. II- HIRTA, T. JnJer5.— Ruellia birta, Vahl, Symb. iii. p. 84, t. 67, 

 et iV. ab E. in DC. I. c. p. 145.— K. latebrosa, Roxh. FL hid. iii. p. 46. 

 -R. sprmentosa, N. ah E. in Wall. PL As. rar. iii. p. 83.— Hemi- 

 crapbis ktebrosa, A\ ab E. in DC\ L c. p. 723, partim, 



Hab. In gramiuosis per Bengaliaui dlvulgata, in planitie Gangetica 

 supeviorefrcquens; ad Calcutta, inuigena in bortobotaiuco, TI^«Z^ Cat, 

 2382!, Griffdhl', Jessore, Parr?/ !, Rook, filet T, rkomsl; ad Ku- 

 worikot. Ham, in Wall 6'a^2382E!; ad Biu-eilly, T. Anders. i Urn- 

 ballah, Edgeworth, 



b ■ 



I 



A great deal of coiifiiriiou exists in tlio ' Prodromus ' about 

 this species. YabPs Buellia hirta, as described by Kces at p. 1^5 

 of the eleventh volume of the ' Prodromus,' is the plant I recog- 

 nize as Ilemigraj^liis Idrta, In tbe synonymy of H- ^^i^^^^ ^J' 

 p. 14G, Xees quotes B. latebrosa, Eoxb., of tbe Flora Indica, m. 

 p. 4G, et herb. I have seen Eoxburgli's specimen ; it is tbe same 

 as Vabl's species. 



So far ISTees von Esenbeck's determination is correct ; and bad 

 be been satisfied with his elucidation of this by no means difficult | 



species, no charge of having caused confusion could have been 

 made. 



Among the addenda at p. 722 of the * Prodromus,' the genus 

 UemigrcfpMs occurs for the first time, and is marked xxxii. bis, 

 as coming before Utiellia. The second species of this genus 

 (vide DC. Prodr. xi. p. 723) is H. latelrosa, Eoxb. Fl. Ind. lU- 



p. 4G (following the method adopted by Nees in all other simdar 







