68 JOUBNAL, BOMBAY NATURAL HISTORY SOCIETY, 1891. 



or described by the distinguished and accurately observant 

 Botanists I have named — appearing as they do to differ so much, 

 though in tny tesimation really not differing to any material extent. 



The specimen of the species I have examined is perhaps different 

 from the specimen the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Birdwood^ or Brigade 

 Surgeon Dymock, or Colonel Beddome may have examined, but it 

 is generally and generically speaking Kdrvi or StroJnlanthes all the 

 same. Specific differences may exist in all of them if each one is 

 compared witb the otlier, and what I have chiefly to point out in 

 this contribution is that if the leaves of the Jia?'OT that I describe 

 as Strobilanthes Callosus have any irritant properties or poisonous 

 effects on the human stomach on account of its hairs or glandular 

 appendages', Birdwood's Strobilanthes Aspevrimus Karwi, Dymock's 

 Strohilanthes ciliatus Karvi, and Beddome's Strohilanthes Gra- 

 hamianus may, if similarly carelessly used, produce similar 

 effects on the human body. Let me therefore prepare my reader 

 to note how the plant I have described differs in its minor 

 points from that described or named by Mr. Bird wood, Dr. Dymock 

 and Ool. Beddome, respectively. Mr. Birdwood^s species has hirsute 

 joints and trichotomous petioles. The species I describe has none 

 of these. Dr. Dymock's description of S. ciliatus is very much 

 the same as that of my 8. Gallosiis. But the description of 8. 

 ciliatus given by Nees in Wallich (Pt. III., Plant. Asiat. Ear., p. 

 85) whom Dr. Dymock cites as his authority, is slightly different from 

 the description given by Dr. Dymock. The plant described by 

 Professor Nees has " Rami sujira gejiicula fidroso-fimhriati," whereas^ 

 Dr. Dymock^s species is "■ branchless." {Vide 2 ed., Mat. Med. of 

 Western India, p. 592.) The flowers in Nees' specimen are described 

 as *'longitudine bractse" "Corolla lutea (?) " — the query Nees' 

 own, thus showing that Nees was doubtful as to whether the colour of 

 his species was really yellow. Whereas Dymock is positive about 

 the colour of his S. ciliatus being not only blue but bright bhie. 



Leaving these three Botanists aside when I pursue this subject 

 still further and take up Hooker's standard work on the Flora of 

 British India, another question crops up. It is this. I must hum- 

 bly admit, I find some difficulty — no small one — in following the 

 attempt made by Clarke in amalgamating Dalzell's Strohilanthes 



