290 Dr. Francis Hamilton's Commentary 



sidered as representing three plants ; that is, there are three 

 plants very like each other ; but they differ so much in the essen- 

 tia] point of seed, that they must be three distinct species ; and 

 unfortunately, Plukenet neglects to inform us to which of the 

 seeds the branch represented belongs ; only as these marked a 

 are placed near the capsules annexed to the branch, they proba- 

 bly belong to it, the seeds b and c having separate capsules 

 placed by them. Plukenet himself afterwards (Mant. 90.) com- 

 pares his plant with his Gratiola affinis Maderaspatana, Digitalis 

 amula, folio Chinopodii, capsulis in vei'ticillis positis (Aim. 180. ; 

 P/iyt. t. 193. /. 3.) : but this also has little resemblance to the 

 Mr Schulli, and cannot even belong to the same genus, having 

 the corolla divided into four equal segments. There is no repre- 

 sentation of the flower in ^. 49. y^. 3. ; but the capsules a and b 

 strongly resemble those of the I^ir Schulli, and these plants may 

 belong to the same genus at least. 



No further notice seems to have been taken of the Nir Schulli, 

 until Willdenow thought {Sp. PL iii. 374.) that it might be a 

 variety of the Ruellia difformis, first described by the younger 

 Linnaeus. This is saying very little ; nor does M. Poiret say 

 more {Enc. Meth. vi. 348.). I do not therefore wonder that 

 Dr. Roxburgh described the plant as a new species, which he 

 called Ruellia obovata (Hort. Beng. 46.) ; for it by no means 

 agrees with what Linnaeus states of his Ruellia difformis. Rox- 

 burgh, however, does not quote the Nir Schulli, because he 

 found it already taken up. I doubt very much the propriety of 

 considering this as a Ruellia, and think that it should be asso- 

 ciated with the Hygrophila of Brown (Nov. Hoi. i. 479-)- The 

 specimens, however, which I have presented to the Collection 

 of the East India Company are marked Ruellia? obovata, while 

 those of a species very nearly allied are marked Ruellia ? quadri- 

 valvis. As I look upon this last as entirely new, I shall give a 



full 



