369 



taken up by Hooker who, while rejecting one of the species 

 which Wallich had confused with Mu-kelengu and Combilivm, 

 inadvertently accepted another in which the foliage singularly 

 resembles that of JIu-kelengu. This species is nevertheless very 

 distinct and approaches more closely in its essential characters 

 to a Central American species, I), cymulosa, HemsL {Biol. Cent. 

 Amer. Bot. vol. iii. p. 355. t. 90). So great is the resemblance 

 | in this case that Hooker has ventured to reduce the American 



species to his T). spinosa. It should be noted that the description 



of the female raceme and the fruit of D. spinosa (Flor. Brit. Ind. 





ol. vi. p. 291) is taken, not from the plant described by Rox- 

 burgh, but from the species outwardly resembling Roxburgh's 

 plant confused therewith by AYallieh.* This species has been 

 described by the writers in 1904 as D. birmanica (Journ. As. Soc. 

 Beng. vol. lxxiii. pars 2. p. 185). 



The Mou-alu, hoih as a wild and as a cultivated species, is widely 

 •spread in India. In Iiulo-China it is found as a cultivated plant, 

 as it also is in the Mascarenes, Ceylon, the Malayan islands and 

 the southern islands of the Japanese system. In dry Central 

 Hmma it is preferred as a crop to the Susni-alv owing to the 

 ' protection against pigs which the spiny roots afford. The 



$nsni-alu y in many states, is widely cultivated in India and in 



.. 



specimen. The one present is written up by Hamilton as : — D. hirsuta, 

 Goyalpara, 17 Oct. 1808. It is the Kukur-alu (D. anguina, Boxb.). 



C. Moalmyne, 1827. Two specimens both collected by Wallich : one, in 

 fruit, has the field-note "Moalmyn, 8 March, 1827"; the other, a flowering 

 male, has the note "Moalmyn, 11 April, 1827." Both are D. birmanica, 

 Prain and Burkill. 



? D. D. aeuleata, H. Ham. e Monghir. Left without correction by 

 Wallich. The specimen is written up by Hamilton as: — D. aeuleata P 

 ISatbpur, 21 Sep., 1810. The plant is the Susni-alu (D. fasciculata, Boxb.); 

 Nathpur is in Purnea, not in Mongyr. 



? E. D. echinata, H. Ham. e Monghir et Gualpara (Lith. Cat.). Corrected 

 by Wallich himself in Herb. Propr. to "e Bahadurgung et Borybari. M 

 There is no Bahadurganj specimen. The one present is written up by 

 Hamilton as follows : — D. echinata. Borybari, 14 Feb., 1809. It is Mou-alu, 

 forma inculta (D. aeuleata, Boxb., i.e. D. spinosa, Boxb. ex Wall.). The 

 locality is in Bangpur, hence the necessity for Wallich's correction noted 

 above. 



P. Prome, 1827. One specimen collected by Wallich with field-note 

 montes prope Prome, 15 Sep., 1826/' The plant is D. birmanica, Prain and 

 Burkill. 



? G. Napalia inferior, 1820. Two specimens, both collected by Wallich 

 in Dec. 1820 and both marked by him ' Cissampelos.' Both are the Kxikur- 

 <tlu (D. anguina, Koxb.). 



H. Sillet, F. D. One specimen from Sylhet, collected by F. da Silva, 

 which is the Kukur-alu (D. anguina, Boxb.). 



* Some minor inadvertencies have incurred in the writing up and the 

 -citation of the Wallichian specimens of Cat. 5103 in the Flora of British 

 India. Thus 5103A (D. combilium, H. Ham.) though cited as ' D. Ceru- 

 bulium'has been written up as D. anguina,; while 5103B (D. hirsuta, H. 

 Ham.) though written up as D. anguina, which it really is, has been cited as 

 D. spinosa. The remaining citations under D. spinosa and D. anguina 

 respectively are in conformity with the specimens, subject to the reservation 

 that 5103C and 5103F, being sheets with specimens which Hooker has 

 accepted on Wallich's authority as D. spinosa, but which really belong to the 

 very different D. birmanica, are to be excluded from D. spinosa and D. 

 anguina alike. 



D 



nm 



