208 Dr. Francis Hamilton's Commentary 



may very possibly be the case : but the determination of this 

 I must leave to other observers. Dr. Roxburgh {Tl. Ind. i. 

 115.), although he quotes the CarimCurini alone, describes the 

 upper lip of the corolla like Forskael ; but this is not the case 

 in the Hortus Kewensis (i. 36.), nor in either of the specific cha- 

 racters of Vahl, for two are quoted by Willdenow. 



Bem Cvni^i, p. 33. Jig. 21. 



This plant has entirely the habit of the preceding, and of the 

 Justicia Adhatoda of Linnaeus, which is much more than can be 

 said of most of the plants usually referred to the same Linnaean 

 genus, and even of those which constitute the Malabar genus 

 Curini. It seems to have been first described by Bontius ; but 

 of this Commeline was not aware. Ray, Hermann and Tourne- 

 fort mention the plant of Bontius about that time ; yet the 

 elder Burman {T/ies. Zeyl. 47.) does not seem to have known 

 that the plant of Hermann and Bontius was the Bem Curini. 

 This was first pointed out by Linnaeus {Fl. Zeyl. 18.), who quotes 

 all the preceding authorities, and in the Species Plantarum called 

 it Justicia Betonica, a name adopted by the younger Burman 

 {Fl. Ind. 8.). Here another authority, Garcin, is quoted; but 

 neither in the Encyclopedie nor in Willdenow is this retained, 

 and the latter omits the authorities of Tournefort, Ray, and 

 Hermann, introducing in their stead Vahl and Fabricius. Dr, 

 Roxburgh {Fl. Ind. i. 129.) quotes the Ilort. Mai. alone, which 

 is also the case in the Ilorlus Kewensis (i. 41.), the one proba- 

 bly meaning for the synonyma to refer to Willdenow, and the 

 other to Vahl. 



Dr. Roxburgh had in the botanical garden at Calcutta a plant, 

 which he considered different from the Bem Curini, and which 

 he called Justicia ramosissima. He received both plants from 

 Madras, while I found a plant growing by the sides of rivulets 



among 



