on the Hortus Malabaricus, Part IF. 249 



was no longer considered by Linnaeus as a Lobelia, but called Sccevola Lobelia; 

 for he transferred the name Lobelia of Pluniicr to the Rapuntium and Trache- 

 lium of Tournefort, with which he iiad ori^anally confounded it ; and thus, 

 with his usual spirit of innovation, gave the name Scwvola to the original 

 Lobelia. There is also room to suspect that iiis Sccevola Lobelia is neither the 

 plant of Herman nor that described by Plumier ; for Mr. R. Brown {Fl. Nov. 

 Holl. i. 583.) assures us, that the Sccevola Lobelia of the LinnBean Herbarium 

 is the Sccevola Kooiiigii (foliis obovatis apice subrepandis), while the plant of 

 Herman in the Flora Zeylanica is defined "foliis ovali-oblongis integerrimis," 

 wliich terms are also applicable to the Lobelia Plumieri, to which we shall 

 again iiave occasion to return. 



Gsertner, adhering to the genus Lobelia as founded by Plumier, called the 

 Bella Moclagam, Lobelia Taccada [De Setn. i. 1 19. t. '2b. f. 5.) ; but he considers 

 the Buglosnum litoreum as the same plant, and probably described it alone ; for 

 he says, that the figure of the drupa in the Hortus Malabaricus does not exactly 

 agree ; and he points out most essential differences in the American plant. 



Dr. Roxburgh, under the name Sccevola Taccada {Hort. Beng. 15.), I have 

 no doubt described Gsertner's plant, and I have given to the library at the 

 India House specimens from his garden ; but the plant is not a tree, was sent 

 from the Eastern Islands by Mr. W. Roxburgh, and agrees entirely with the 

 description of the Buglossum litoreum, although the figure of the Bella Modu- 

 gam is also very like, and is quoted by Dr. Roxburgh. This likeness, however, 

 consists chiefly in the foliage, liable to considerable variation ; and the size of 

 the Bella Modagam, and its being a mountain plant, seem to me insuperable 

 objections to our considering it as Dr. Roxburgh's Sccevola Taccada. 



M. Lamarck {IK. Gen. ii. 70.) considers the American and an Indian plant 

 different, calling tiie former (no doubt Plumier's Lobelia) Sca?vola Plumieri 

 {t. 124./. 1.), and the latter Sccevola Koenigii (t. 124./. 2.), in imitation, pro- 

 bably, of Vahl ; and this last is, no doubt, the same with the S. Lobelia of the 

 Linnaean herbarium, as described by Mr. R. Brown. This Indian plant, 

 M. Lamarck says, is the same with the Lobelia Taccada of Gsertner, from 

 whom he no doubt has copied the delineations of the fruit marked b, c, d, e,f, 

 g, li, and / ; but then at a is represented the branch of a plant, agreeing with 

 Mr. Brown's account, but quite different from either the Buglossum litoreum 



