i48  Ballota  Hirsuta.  { Amk^ 
suta  was  borrowed  and  further  macroscopic  and  microscopic  details 
apprehended  which  proved  conclusively  that  the  adulterant  was  Bal- 
lota hirsuta.  The  characteristics  of  these  two  herbs  and  the  impor- 
tant diagnostic  differences  are  hereby  presented. 
Fig.  i.  Fig.  2. 
Fig.  1.  Aerial  portion  (to  right)  and  branch  (to  left)  of  Marrubium 
vulgar e  L.    X  34 
Fig.  2.  Aerial  foliage  and  floral  stem  of  Ballota  hirsuta  Benth.  Note  the 
dense  axillary  clusters  of  flowers.    X  %■ 
