28 Journal of the Asiatic Society of Benyal. [January, 1915.} 
specimen of Linnaeus was not available for comparison, but a 
study of the decription and of the figures by Aitken and others 
showed that the South Indian plant is not the same, differing 
entirely in the shape s the corolla and in the possession of 
several, not three, leaflets. An interesting find was that two 
species of Dicrocephala—D. latifolia DC. and D. chrysanthemi- 
folia DC.—were one and the same, the characters of the one 
was perhaps in connection with the well-known Indian plant 
called Crotalaria rubiginosa, Willd. In the Flora of British 
India and in all subsequent local Floras the plant has been given 
this name, because, one must suppose, it appeared to agree with 
a description, by Willdenow, of a plant which was said to have 
been collected in the East Indies. In the F.B.I. two other 
species, C. scabrella, W. and A., and C. Wightiana, Graham, are 
united with it. Both these have been separated again by later 
workers, notably by Sir D. Prain, the former Director of the 
Botanical Survey. As I had three distinct forms, I sent them 
scabrella or C. Wightiana, but that Willdenow’s plant is identi- 
cal with C. sagittalis L., a North American species. The Indian 
plant, so long known as C. rubiginosa, Willd., must therefore 
be given another name, and in Wallich’s herbarium at Kew 
detailed descriptive Frora with many illustrations, will, it is 
hoped, be published this year. 
