292 Dr. Francis Hamitton’s Commentary 
2. Ruellia? vel Hygrophila obovata. Hort. Beng. 46. 
Ruellia difformis. illd. Sp. Pl. iii. 374? Enc. Meth. vi. 
348? 
Nir Schulli. Hort. Mal. ii. 89. t. 46. 
Habitat in 'Tripura australe. 
Flores albidi labio inferiore purpureo. Calyx pubescens, cilia- 
tus. Antherarum loculi paralleli lineares. Semina etiam 
immatura integra. 
** Capsule rotundæ, superne aculeatæ ac pungentes instar spina- 
rum, in longum sex striis sulcatæ.” H.M. 
Cara SCHULLI, p. 91. fig. 47. 
In comparing this to a Capparis, Commeline is no less unfor- 
tunate than with the two preceding species of Schulli ; yet Plu- 
kenet followed him, calling it Capparis forma, frutex spinosus 
malabaricus (Alm. 80.). This accordingly led the elder Burman 
into the gross error of quoting the Cara Schulli for his Capparis 
spinosa foliis oblongis (Thes. Zeyl. 53.), which is not however the 
plant which Plukenet considered the same with the Cara Schulli, 
but the Capparis indica spinosa angustiore salicis folio (Mant. 36.), 
and this is the Capparis zeylanica of Linnæus (F1. Zeyl. 210.). 
Linnæus therefore in the Flora Zeylanica does not at all quote 
the Cara Schulli. In the Species Plantarum he afterwards joined 
it with an American plant, spinis axillaribus solitariis oppositis, to 
form the Barleria buxifolia, which is accordingly said to belong 
to both the Indies (Willd. Sp. Pl. iii. 377.). M. Lamarck indeed 
quotes the Cara Schulli for the Barleria buxifolia (Enc. Meth. i. 
380.), and makes no mention of this plant growing in the West 
Indies; but Linnæus, from the nature of the specific character, - 
probably saw only the West Indian plant; and M. Lamarck 
himself, in the very same page, refers the Cara Schulli to the 
Barleria 
