1837.] 



Dr. Wallich on Cassia Lanceolata. 



353 



merous authorities which presented themselves, as treat of the plant 

 and drug in a more or lessjbolanical respect, or with particular refer- 

 ence to this country ; and even of these I have only noticed such as 

 appeared to me of use to my brethren in the profession in India, and 

 which I was able to consult personally. I have likewise thought it un- 

 necessary to swell this little memoir by extracting from the works of 

 Fleming, Ainslie, and others, what relates to the Indian names of the 

 drug, its uses among the natives and the like ; because I could have 

 offered nothing more than a stale repetition of the information given 

 by those authors. 



It appears from Dr. Roxburgh's Hortus Bengalensis, that the plant 

 was first introduced into the Botanic Garden of Calcutta in the year 

 1800, by the Rev. Dr. Carey. I am unable to say what result attended 

 its culture at the time, but it may be concluded, from the circumstances 

 of the plant not existing in the garden in 1808, and disappearing after- 

 wards altogether for many years, that considerable difficulties were ex- 

 perienced in preserving it. In Roxburgh's valuable MS. Synopsis 

 Floras Indicee the plant is introduced under the same name which it 

 bears in the Hortus Bengalensis, — namely, Cassia Senna; and a specific 

 character is added, which establishes beyond a doubt its identity with 

 our Cassia lanceolata. He says, however, that the plant is " a native 

 of the interior of India as well as Arabia, &c." of the correctness of 

 which assertion I must express a serious doubt. In quoting Willdenow's 

 edition of the Species Plantarum of Linna?us for his plant, a question 

 naturally ar ( ises : which 'of the two, if not more, species of Cassia which 

 are confounded there under the name of C. Senna, was actually meant 

 by Dr. Roxburgh ? Taking the species as he found it in Willdenow, 

 the extensive geographical distribution to which I have alluded is, 

 strictly speaking, true ; but, as I before observed, the species which 

 Roxburgh had before him was undoubtedly C. lanceolata, the true and 

 genuine Senna plant of Asia Minor, which plant most unquestionably 

 does not grow wild in the interior of India, nor in any part of the East 

 Indies. 



There is another species of Cassia which produces Senna leaves, and 

 is called by Colladon C. obovata. It is distinct from ours, although for 

 a lono- time it was confounded with it by Linnaeus and others. This, too, 

 is a native of Asia Minor ; but does it not also grow in India ? Both 

 Colladon and other botanists citeBurman's C, Senna, which is decidedly 

 an Indian production, as a synonyme ; but I suspect they are wrong in 

 so doing ; in other words, I am inclined to consider Colladon's and 

 Burman's plants as two different species, belonging to different coun- 

 tries. Roxburgh has a plant which he calls Senna obtusa, Flor. Ind. 

 vol. 2, p. 344, and for which he quotes Burman's C. Senna-, and this 

 plant, judging from Roxburgh's excellent description as well as from 



