238 THE JOURNAL OF BOTANY 
Hunter, already quoted, it is stated that Roxburgh named the 
drawings which “ were left blank by Captain Hardwicke,” and his 
This name is not taken up in the Indew Kewensis, for which the 
paper seems to have been imperfectly examined. The drawing is 
localized: ‘‘ Coadwara, 20th April, 1796. T. H.”; in the description 
is added, ‘‘ Found on the sides of the Koa Nullah”’: the “ country 
name,’’ not given in the printed paper, is ‘“* Unga-reea.’”’ I quote 
localities and names only when these are omitted from As. Res. 
The descriptions printed are not identical with those in MS.; the 
latter are more detailed, and, as we shall see later, sometimes more 
accurate. 
A copy of this drawing and of others of the series—e. g., no. 55— 
is in the large collection formed by Dr. Fleming, now incorporated 
in the arranged series of plates in the Department of Botany. 
This collection, numbering 1825 drawings, was purchased in 1882; 
it was then in thirteen folio volumes, Fleming died in 1815, and 
I know nothing of the history of the drawings before they came 
into our possession. They are by native artists, and include copies 
of many of the plates in Roxburgh’s Plants of Coromandel, probably 
made from the originals for that work. In the end of the eighteenth 
series a set from the Saharanpur Gardens, and another from Dr. 
cidentally refers (As. Res. vi. 867) to ‘‘ the extensive and invaluable 
collection of Mr. R. Bruce,” who at that period was ‘about to 
enrich the science of botany” with ‘many new genera.’ Is any- 
thing more known of Bruce and his work ? 
16. Puuogacantaus tTayrsirLorus Nees. Justicia thyrsiformis 
Roxb. MS.; As. Res. vi. 849: ‘‘the trivial name is added on the 
opinion of Dr. Roxburgh”; it is not in Ind. Kew. ‘‘Amsour 21st 
April 1796, T. H.”; ‘ Annet, country name.” 
24. Savromarum eurtatum Schoit. This does not appear in the 
printed paper. ‘‘Neem-kerowly, near Futiehghur, March 1796, 
T. H.” “ Buzze-kund, D,hey, Bund-kanda, names in the Dooab 
and in Rohileund.”’ 
29. Caramixis BacoHaRoipes Thoms. Prenanthes, As. Res. vi. 
369. Thi the most interesting of Hardwicke's finds. It is 
named in M§. by Roxburgh “ Prenanthes procumbens Rox.’”’—i.e. 
Lannea sido, with which it is impossible to suggest how 
Roxburgh could have confused it. It was described and figured 
to the Kew um, tells me that there are also specimens ‘from 
Mr. E. G. ee has checked my determination by reference 
Mr. Duthie and from Edgeworth. Hardwicke’s drawing gives one 
