on the Ilortus Malabaricus, Part II. 207 



succeeding authors ; although the figures would seem to indi- 

 cate still greater differences, especially in the lower bracteae be- 

 ing deciduous in Burman's plant, and persistent in the Carim 

 Curini. The synonyma of Hermann and Plukenet, mentioned in 

 Burman, belong to the Carim Curini. 



Linnaeus in treating of this plant {Fl. Zeyl. 17.) omits the 

 synonyma of Tournefort and Bobart, and adds one from Ray, 

 without noticing the difference between the plants of Burman 

 and Rheede. The younger Burman again, having adopted the 

 name Jiisticia Ecbolium from the Species Plantarum, restores the 

 name of Tournefort, omits that of Ray, and adds one from the 

 Herbarium of Carcin. The plant which he had seen was that 

 described by his father. 



M. Lamarck {Enc. Meth. i. 626.) quotes again Ray, but 

 omits Garcin, and adds a plant of Forskael, which this botanist 

 considered different from that of Linnaeus, as he called it Jiisti- 

 cia viridis. Besides this M. Lamarck adds two varieties, of 

 which he had received specimens, one from India and the other 

 from Madagascar ; and both seem to differ considerably from 

 the Carim Curini. 



Willdenow {Sp. PL i. 85.), omitting all the older authorities, 

 except the elder Burman, Plukenet, and Rheede, quotes several 

 descriptions from recent authors ; but mentions nothing to en- 

 able us to judge, whether either he or they meant the plant of 

 Burman or that of Rheede, if he really saw either ; for the plant 

 of Forskael, which he evidently describes, is distinguished "galea 

 corollce bidentata," while in the figures of Burman, as well as in 

 those of Plukenet and Rheede, this member is represented as 

 undivided. The differences, which I have mentioned as belong- 

 ing to the synonyma conjoined with the Carim Curini, are of 

 too little importance to require a subdivision into several spe- 

 cies, unless accompanied by others more remarkable, which 



may 



