on the Hortus Malabaricus, Part II. 279 
his second variety of the Bochmeria interrupta, retaining the 
error (sativa for fatua) of the younger Burman, he quotes the 
Urtica fatua &c. of the elder Burman, although this is the very 
authority which Linnæus in the Flora Zeylanica recommended as 
giving a good representation of his Urtica, and which, as I have 
said, is probably the Urtice genus Indianum &c. of Plukenet. 
Along with the first variety he introduces an Urtica montana, 
which I cannot trace in authors. It is true that he quotes 
Rumphius (Amb. vi. p. 48. t. 20. f. 1.) ; but the plant there de- 
scribed is the Urtica Decumana, which has no sort of affinity to 
the Batti Schorigenam ; and the only other Urtica mentioned in 
the Index to the work of Rumphius is the U. mortua (Herb. 
Amb. vi. 49. t 20. f. 2.), which is equally different from the 
Batti Schorigenam, being probably the Wellia Cupameni ( Hort. 
Mal. x. t. 63.), of which I shall again have occasion to speak. 
On the whole, the only authorities which I can consider as 
certainly the same with the Batti Schorigenam, are the Urtica 
pilulifera &c. of the elder Burman, excluding many of the syno- 
nyma; the Urtica interrupta B of the younger Burman ; and the 
Urtica interrupta of Lamarck ; excluding altogether from his sy- 
nonyma the first plant of Burman, and marking that of Plukenet 
with doubt. 
Ana SCHORIGENAM, p. 77. fig. 41. 
The specific names Ana and Hasty, prefixed to the generic 
terms Schorigenam and Gasurculi of the natives, imply elephant. _ 
Plukenet calls this Urtica urens racemifera major (Alm. 393.) : 
but throws no light whatever on the history of the plant, which 
can be only known from the account of Rheede. M. Lamarck, 
however, (Enc. Meth. iv. 645.) quotes this name of Plukenet 
(without noticing Rheede) as being the same with the Urtica 
heterophylla of Vahl, and the U. palmata of Forskahl ; but he had 
not 
