278 Dr. Francis HaurLTON's Commentary 
as fig. 1. is quoted for the next variety, in which the Urtica pilu- 
lifera &c. of Burman is rightly joined with the Batti Schorige- 
nam, and with no other plant. So far is well, and the chief 
points remaining to be determined are, whether the inert U. in- 
terrupta « is to be considered as a mere variety of the stinging 
U. interrupta 8, and whether one or both be really Urtice. I 
have already mentioned a doubt on this last head, as one of the 
authors quoted by the elder Burman for his Urtica pilulifera 
&c. calls it tricoccos, which implies its not being an Urtica as 
defined by Linnzus. 
M. Lamarck (Enc. Meth. iv. 643.) continues the U. inter- 
rupta much as it was in Burman's Flora Indica ; but quotes all 
the four synonyma, without dividing them into two varieties or 
sets; only he quotes the U. fatua &c. with doubt. It is clear, 
however, that the specimens which he had, belonged to the Batti 
Schorigenam, as it had **feuilles point cordiformes—parsemées de 
poils piquans," and it is impossible to conceive that he would 
mistake one of the Euphorbie or Tricocce for an Urtica. That 
point may therefore be considered as settled ; and the Planta 
tricocca of Hermann quoted by Burman, may be safely referred 
to some other place. - 
Willdenow (Sp. PL. iv. 342.) calls the U. interrupta of Lin- 
næus by the name of Boehmeria interrupta, leaving it still, how- 
ever, in the natural order of Urtice ; but he throws the synonyma 
again into some of the confusion from which they had been 
freed in the Flora Indica of Burman. The Batti Schorigenam he 
indeed leaves with the Urtica pilulifera &c. of the elder Bur- 
man: butthen he places these stinging hairy erect plants in his 
first variety of the Boehmeria interrupta foliis glabris, and along 
with them he includes the Urtica of the Flora Zeylanica, the 
leaves of which do not sting, and the Lupulo vulgari similis &c. 
of Plukenet, which is most probably a climber: but further, for 
his 
