on tin Hortus Malabaricus, Part I. 



. > i j 



leaves. It is not uncommon in every part of India, chiefly in 

 hedges or near houses, where it is planted as an ornament, or 

 rather singularity; for it is a lurid foetid plant, of an uncouth 

 appearance. 



Pajaneli, [). ?0. jig, I y 



Quoted erroneously in the letter-press as figure 45 ; an error 

 which several botanists have copied, without I suspect 

 having read the description, or looked at the number on 

 the plate. 



The Pajaneli does not seem to have been noticed by European 

 botanists, until it was quoted in the Encyclopedic as a variety of 

 the Bignonia indica, and conjoined with plants that very possibly 

 are such ; but this, having only simply pinnated leaves, is totally 

 different, although of nearly the same size, and equally lurid and 

 uncouth. The variety of the Encyclopedic Willdenow made a 

 different species, which he called Bignonia longijolia, which how- 

 ever he defines foliis bipinnatis ; and if he saw any such plant, 

 it must be quite different from the Pajaneli. He does not how- 

 ever say that he ever saw the plant, and he has perhaps bor- 

 rowed his account entirely from Rheede ; and this he must have 

 done without reading the description, taking it for granted that 

 the leaves, like those of the Palega Pajaneli, were doubly pin- 

 nated, and drawing his character entirely from the figure. 



Loureiro quotes the Pajaneli for the Bignonia indica a, which 

 is therefore the same with the Bignonia longijolia of Willdenow. 

 Perhaps, however, Loureiro really described a plant with doubly 

 pinnated leaves, and therefore it may only be his quotation that 

 is erroneous. Persoon, again, quotes Hort. Mai. i. t. 45., pro- 

 bably meaning this same plant for his Spathodea indica, which is 

 therefore Bignonia longijolia of Willdenow, and not the Bignonia 

 indica. as Persoon suspected. 



As 



