288 Dr. Francis HaurrToN's Commentary 
(Fl. Ind. 111.), the plant of the Flora Zeylanica, with the addi- 
tion of the Ossifraga lactea, becomes the Euphorbia Tirucalli, 
with a termination rather barbarous. 
M. Lamarck (Enc. Meth. ii. 418.), without adding Africa to its 
native habitation, restores the Egyptian Telfel-Tavil to the syno- 
nyma ; but this is again omitted by Willdenow (Sp. Pl. ii. 890.). 
Bauer SCHULLI, p. 87. fig. 45. 
The Malabar genus Schulli implies plants of the natural order 
of Acanthaceæ, prickly in some of their parts, and having erect 
woody stems and stiff leaves ; and these circumstances make the 
arrangement natural, although the plants belong to different 
Linnzan genera. Commeline's comparison of the Bahel Schulli 
with the Genista is an attempt at classification more rude than 
that of the natives. 
The only author, since the time of Commeline, who notices 
this plant, is M. Lamarck (Enc. Meth. i. 379.), who considers it 
justly as the Barleria longifolia of Linnzeus, a species originally 
founded in the Amenitates Academice from the Anchusa angusti- 
folia verticillis longis aculeis armatis (Pluk. Alm. 30; Phyt. t. 133. 
f.4.), and for which no authority, except Plukenet, is ever 
quoted by the Linnæan school. I have no doubt that the quo- 
tation in M. Lamarck is right; but I doubt much of the plant 
being a Barleria; and its leaves are by no means ensiform as 
Linnæus and M. Lamarck assert. It was perhaps owing to its 
differing so much from the generic character of Barleria, and 
from the specific character given by Linnzus, while the Bahel 
Schulli was not quoted by any author which he consulted, that 
Dr. Roxburgh never introduced this plant into the catalogue of 
the botanical garden at Calcutta, although it grows abundantly 
there. He knew that it was the Bahel Schulli, he found that this 
was not quoted, and it is so very common, that he thought it 
must 
