78 
he did not cite. As the Chrozophora to which the specimen be- 
longs has lepidote capsules, whereas the capsules ot C. licata are 
stellate-pubescent, this reduction proposed by Baillon cannot be 
adopted. 
In 1861 Dalzell (Fl. Bomb. p. 233) carried out what Hamilton 
had proposed in 1822 and treated the erect Indian Chrozophora 
with stellate-pubescent red-purple capsules as distinct from the 
prostrate Indian one with eglandular leaves and blackish non- 
tinctorial stellate-pubescent capsules. But whereas Hamilton 
termed the erect species Croton asperum and the prostrate one 
Croton plicatum, VDalzell termed the erect species Chrozophora 
plicata and used for the prostrate one the new name Ch rozophora 
prostrata. 
In 1862 Schweinfurth (Pl. quaed. Nilot. pp. 10, 11, tt. 3, 4) 
carefully figured and separated the two forms described as Croton 
plicatum by Vahl in 1790 and as Croton obliquifolium by Visiani 
l 36. In doing this Schweinfurth, after hosie examined the 
type of ‘Croton tinctorium? Forsk. Cent. vi. p. 162’ in the 
Copenhagen herbarium, rejected Visiani’s suggestion that Croton 
obliquifolium, Vis., might be the form described by Forskal. 
Nevertheless, after having taken this step, Schweinfurth used 
for Visiani’s plant the name Chrozophora plicata, in spite of the 
fact that the type of Croton plicatum, Vahl (1790), is the plant 
from Gizeh which Forskal had described as Croton tinctorium. 
For the plant with stellate-pubescent capsules which does 
agree with ‘ Croton tinctorium? Forsk. Cent. vi. p. 162° Schwein- 
furth used the name Chrozophora obliqua, notwithstanding the 
fact that in 1807 Geiseler had explained that the capsules of 
Croton obliquum, Vahl (1790) are lepidote. 
Under the plant which Visiani had termed Croton obliquifolium 
in 1836 and which Baillon had named Chrozophora obliquifolia 
in 1858, but which Schweinfurth had now termed Chrozophora 
plicata, the last-named author in 1862 cited a specimen which 
Klotasch in 1861 (Peters, Mossamb. Bot. ii. p. 99) had identified 
with C. tinctoria. In 1863 Klotzsch (l.c. corrig. p. 576) ac- 
cepted Schweinfurth’s emendation. This plant, Schweinfurth 
has remarked, does not extend to India. 
But the plant which Schweinfurth had now termed Chrozophora 
obliqua was treated with less caution because it was made to in- 
clude, in addition to the African form which agrees with the type 
of Croton plicatum, Vahl (1790), both the South India Croton 
plicatum, Willd. (1805), non Vahl, for which, Schweinfurth has 
told us, Klotzsch had suggested the name Chrozophora parvifolia, 
and the Bombay plant which Dalzell had named Chrozophora 
a variety Hartmanniana (t. 5) one which better agrees with 
