on the Hortus Malabaricus, Part IT. 273 
ture of their involucrum was similar, and totally different from 
that of the other plants which he placed in the same genus. 
But this argument should have fallen to the ground, when he found 
that he had placed them wrong, and called them Tragia invo- 
lucrata (Burm. Fl. Ind. 294.), quoting both the narrow and broad 
leaved kinds for the same species. ‘The most essential difference 
between the two plants, and which might perhaps not be ob- 
servable in dried specimens, is, that the Schorigenam seems 
to be an erect plant; for Rheede, speaking of the Valli Schori- 
genam (79.), says, ‘a prima (i. e. a Schorigenam) non differt 
nisi quod hic sit Convolvulus :" and again, **Schorigenam est 
frutex altitudine trium pedum." Now the scandent nature of 
Burman's narrow-leaved plant is apparent even in his drawing : 
and Willdenow (Sp. Pl. iv. 324.), having seen the plant alive, 
adds to the specific character **caule scandente." Although, 
therefore, he continues to quote the Schorigenam as well as Bur- 
man's plant, it seems clear that he meant the latter only, and 
should have quoted the Valli Schorigenam as synonymous, while 
the Schorigenam of Malabar or Welkahabilia of MAL is a very 
. distinct species. 
Although M. Poiret places the Tragia involucrata among the 
species that have a climbing stem, yet he still continues ( Enc. 
Meth. vii. 723.) to join with it the Schorigenam ; but he alters 
the specific character of Willdenow, who has the folia ovata like 
the Schorigenam, in place of sublanceolata like the Kahabilia. 
The fact however is, that in the twining plant the leaves vary 
much in shape from ovate to nearly lanceolate, as Linnæus 
justly observed, which probably induced him to join the Schori- 
genam with the plant of Burman, having overlooked the erect 
stem of the former. Owing to this variable form in the leaves 
of the twining plant, the question is not, whether it is the same 
with the erect Schorigenam ; but whether it be different from 
the 
