071 the Hortus Malabaricus, Part II. 279 



his second variety of the Bochrneria interrupt a, retaining the 

 error {sativa for fatua) of the younger Burman, he quotes the 

 Urtica fatua &c. of the elder Burman, although this is the very 

 authority which Linnaeus in the F/ora Zeylanica recommended as 

 giving a good representation of his Urtica, and which, as I have 

 said, is probably the Urtica genus Indianum Sec. of Plukenet. 

 Along with the first variety he introduces an Urtica ?no?itana, 

 which I cannot trace in authors. It is true that he quotes 

 Rumphius {Amh. vi. p. 48. t. 20. /. 1.) ; but the plant there de- 

 scribed is the Urtica Decumana, which has no sort of affinity to 

 the liatti Schorigenam ; and the only other Urtica mentioned in 

 the Index to the work of Rumphius is the U. mortiia {Herb. 

 Amb. vi. 49. t 20. /. 2.), which is equally different from the 

 Batti Schorigenam, being probably the fVellia Cupameni (Hort. 

 Mai. X. t.63.), of which I shall again have occasion to speak. 



On the whole, the only authorities which I can consider as 

 certainly the same with the Batti Schorigenam, are the Urtica 

 pilulifera Sec. of the elder Burman, excluding many of the syno- 

 nyma; the Urtica interrupta /3 of the younger Burman; and the 

 Urtica interrupta of Lamarck; excluding altogether from his sy- 

 nonyma the first plant of Burman, and marking that of Plukenet 

 with doubt. 



Ana Schorigenam, p. 11. fig- 41, 

 The specific names Ana and Hasty, prefixed to the generic 

 terms Schorigenam and Gasurculi of the natives, imply elephant. 



Plukenet calls this Urtica iirens racemifera major {Aim. 393.) ; 

 but throws no light whatever on the history of the plant, which 

 can be only known from the account of Rheede. M. Lamarck, 

 however, {Enc. Meth. iv. 645.) quotes this name of Plukenet 

 (without noticing Rheede) as being the same with the Urtica 

 heterophylla of Vahl, and the U.palmata of Forskahl ; but he had 



not 



