ROXBURGH’S HORTUS BENGALENSIS. 
415 
Species Published 
On Page 
By Citation of 
Eradleia pinnata 
69 
Phyllanthus obscurus Willd. 
Pandanus furcatus 
71 
H. 
M. 2. t. 8. 
Bails spinosa 
71 
H. 
A. 5. t. 15. f. 2. 
Calamus latifollus 
73 
H. 
M. 12. t. 65. 
Lycopodium aristatum 
75 
Dill. Muse. t. 66. f. 7. 
Ophloglossum flllforme 
75 
H. 
M. 12. t. 3U. 
Polypodium excavatum 
75 
H. 
A. 6. t. 35. f. 1. 
Pterls scandens 
75 
H. 
M. 12. t. 35. 
Eranthemum montanum 
80 
Justicia montana Cor. PI. 
Piper arborescens 
80 
H. 
A. 5. t. 28. f. 1. 
The following are at first sight in the same class, but must be 
held unpublished, except possibly Pandanus Millore. 
Name. 
Page. 
Remarks. 
Eleusine strlcta 
8 
“Cynosurus Linn.” There is no 
Cynosurus strictus Linn. 
Cerbera quaternifolla 
19 
“H. A. 2. t. 363.” There is no such 
plate, and no other means of 
identifying the species. 
Crlnum brevifoilum 
23 
“See asiaticum. Curt. Mag. 1073.” 
Hedysarum lagenarla 
57 
“Aeschynomene L.” There is no 
Aeschynomene lagenaria Linn., 
though there is one of Loureiro. 
Roxburgh’s name, at the utmost, 
is a synonym. 
Leucacephala graminlfolla 
68 
“Eriocaulon Linn.” There is no 
Eriocaulon graminifolium Linn., 
nor was the generic name Leuca- 
cephala ever published. 
Leucacephala spathacea 
68 
Same as preceding. 
Pandanus Millore 
71 
“Nicobar bread fruit tree, As. Res. 
3. 161. seems only a variety of 
odoratissima.” 
A short supplementary list might be made of species where 
Roxburgh’s spelling differs somewhat strikingly from that of 
preceding authors, but where he apparently had no intention of 
forming new names. Perhaps the best cases of this are Jasmi- 
num Zambac, PettospermMni Tobira, Laurus Culitlaban, Vitex 
trifoliata, and Piper Malmaris. 
This list is based on the assumption that a published binomial 
can never be used for any species other than that to which it 
was originally applied, whether or not the name -be valid in the 
genus to which it was attributed or in any other to which it 
may be transferred. There are about 185 additional names 
in the Hortus Bengalensis which would be considered as published 
therein, were it not that they had already been used. In nearly 
all of these cases, Roxburgh was correctly using names which 
