208 Dr. Francis Hamitron’s Commentary 
may very possibly be the case: but the determination of this 
I must leave to other observers. Dr. Roxburgh (F7. Ind. i. 
115.), although he quotes the Carim Curini alone, describes the 
upper lip of the corolla like Forskael; but this is not the case 
in the Hortus Kewensis (1. 36.), nor in either of the specific cha- 
racters of Vahl, for two are quoted by Willdenow. 
Ben CuniNr, p. 33. fig. 21. 
This plant has entirely the habit of the preceding, and of the 
Justicia Adhatoda of Linnæus, which is much more than can be 
said of most of the plants usually referred to the same Linnæan 
genus, and even of those which constitute the Malabar genus 
Curini. It seems to have been first described by Dontius; but 
of this Commeline was not aware. Ray, Hermann and Tourne- 
fort mention the plant of Bontius about that time; yet the 
elder Burman (Thes. Zeyl. 47.) does not seem to have known 
that the plant of Hermann and Bontius was the Bem Curini. 
This was first pointed out by Linnzus (F7. Zeyl. 18.), who quotes 
all the preceding authorities, and in the Species Plantarum called 
it Justicia Betonica, a name adopted by the younger Burman 
(FI. Ind. 8.). Here another authority, Garcin, is quoted; but 
neither in the Encyclopédie nor in Willdenow is this retained, 
and the latter omits the authorities of Tournefort, Ray, and 
Hermann, introducing in their stead Vahl and Fabricius. Dr. 
Roxburgh (Fl. Ind. i. 129.) quotes the Hort. Mal. alone, which 
is also the case in the Hortus Kewensis (1. 41.), the one proba- 
bly meaning for the synonyma to refer to Willdenow, and the 
other to- Vahl. 
Dr. Roxburgh had in the botanical garden at Calcutta a plant, 
which he considered different from the Bem Curini, and which 
he called Justicia ramosissima. He received both plants from 
Madras, while 1 found a plant growing by the sides of rivulets 
among | 
