on the Hortus Malabaricus, Part IT. 277 
wards took it to be the C. plicatum (Hort. Beng. 69.), as I in- 
deed did, until I found a different plant perfectly agreeing with 
the accounts of Willdenow, and with Burman’s figure (4.62. 
f.1.), which represents the C. tinctorium y of M. Lamarck. 
The erroneous quotation of this second plant of the elder Bur- 
man in Linnzus, may have arisen from Burman having erro- 
neously transferred the Ceylonese. name Watuhahambilya from 
his Urtica fatua &c. to his Urtica zeylanica &c.: and Linnæus, 
finding his Urtica interrupta in the collection of Hermann under 
the name Watuhahambilya, would quote for the U. interrupta 
Burman's U. zeylanica &c., while he was sensible that the 
figure of the U. fatua &c. represented his plant. This, how- 
ever, is a mere conjecture. 
We have thus freed the Batti Schorigenam from two of Bur- 
man's plants with which Linnæus confounded it. The third 
(Thes. Zeyl. t. 110. f. 1.), I have already said, I consider as the 
plant of Rheede; but as different from the Urtica of the Flora 
Zeylanica. It is true, that Burman in describing his Urtica pilu- 
lifera &c., which I consider as the Batti Schorigenam, calls the 
leaves cordata; but in looking at the figure, it is evident that 
he employed this term in a sense different from that adopted by 
Linnæus. 
In the Species Plantarum, the Urtica of the Flora Zeylanica is 
called U. interrupta, which is adopted by the younger Burman 
(Fl. Ind. 297.). When he published the species, the synonyma 
had undergone some change. The Urtica fatua &c. of the 
elder Burman (by error written U. sativa) is joined with the 
Lupulo vulgari similis &c. of Plukenet, although it should pro- 
bably have rather been joined with his Urtice genus Indianum 
&c.; and these are the only plants quoted for the first variety of 
this species. It is true, that both fig. 1. and 2. in table 110 of 
Burman are quoted ; but this also is a mere typographical error, 
202 as 
