288 Dr. Francis Hamilton's Commentary 



{Fl. Ind. 111.), the plant of the Flora Zeylanica, with the addi- 

 tion of the Ossifraga lactea, becomes the Euphorbia Tirucalli, 

 with a termination rather barbarous. 



M. Lamarck (£/jc. Mcth. ii. 418.), without adding Africa to its 

 native habitation, restores the Egyptian Telfel-Tavil to the syno- 

 nyma ; but this is again omitted by Willdenow {Sp. PL ii. 890.). 



Bahel Schulli, p. 87. Jig. 4:5. 



The Malabar genus Schulli implies plants of the natural order 

 of Acanthacea, prickly in some of their parts, and having erect 

 woody stems and stiff leaves ; and these circumstances make the 

 arrangement natural, although the plants belong to different 

 Linnaean genera. Commeline's comparison of the Bahel Schulli 

 with the Genista is an attempt at classification more rude than 

 that of the natives. 



The only author, since the time of Commeline, who notices 

 this plant, is M. Lamarck {Enc. Meth. i. 379.), who considers it 

 justly as the Barleria longifolia of Linnaeus, a species originally 

 founded in the Amoenitates Academicce from the Anchusa angusti- 

 folia verticillis longis aculeis armatis (Pluk. Aim. 30 ; Phi/t. t. 133. 

 /. 4.), and for which no authority, except Plukenet, is ever 

 quoted by the Linnaean school. I have no doubt that the quO'- 

 tation in M. Lamarck is right; but I doubt much of the plant 

 being a Barleria ; and its leaves are by no means ensiform as 

 Linnaeus and M. Lamarck assert. It was perhaps owing to its 

 differing so much from the generic character of Barleria, and 

 from the specific character given by Linnaeus, while the Bahel 

 Schulli was not quoted by any author which he consulted, that 

 Dr. Roxburgh never introduced this plant into the catalogue of 

 the botanical garden at Calcutta, although it grows abundantly 

 there. He knew that it was the Bahel Schulli, he found that this 

 was not quoted, and it is so very common, that he thought it 



must 



