568 ON THE GENUS BENJAMINIA. 
find that two of them (or at any rate specimens from the same 
collections, with corresponding nnmbers) had been referred by 
myself to the order Scrophulariacea ; viz. :—n. 4347 of Gardner, 
which is the Benjaminia utricularioides, and my Herpestes reflexa, 
and n. 2276 of Cuming’s Philippine island and Malacca collection 
(from Malacca), which is the Benjaminia glabra, and which I had 
considered as closely allied to, if not the same as Limnophila 
gratioloides var. 8. myriophylloides. Tn the case of both of these 
plants I had formerly examined flowers, and clearly ascertained 
that the stamens were, in insertion and form, those of the genera 
to which I had referred them ; my specimens do not admit of my 
now re-examining these organs, but I have dissected another 
capsule of each species, and again found it in. both cases to be 
bilocular with axile placentation. Mr. Benjamin does not figure 
or describe the placentation, nor does he specially refer to the 
position of the stamens in either of these species, and I must 
therefore conclude that they are both true Serophulariacee, and 
not Utricularieg, and I see no reason for removing them from 
the genera where I had placed them. 
This is not, however, the first instance in which the reduction 
ofthe foliage to capillary segments, by the action of water, has 
oceasioned mistakes, by the similarity of aspect it gives to plants 
belonging to families far removed from each other. It is not un- 
common to find in herbaria, in the cover of Myriophyllum, speci- 
mens of Ranunculus, Cabomba, Ceratophyllum, Limnophila, Dyso- 
phylla, Anacharis, &c., and the Limnophila gratioloides had 
been already described among Caryophyllee and among Primu- 
lacee. 
What the two remaining species of Benjaminie may be, I 
cannot tell without seeing the specimens, but from Mr. Benjamin’s 
description, I should guess the Benjaminia splendens to be Dopa- 
trium lobelioides, and the B. minor to be Dopatrium nudicaule. 
