The Maha Gullah was formerly a notorious place for robbers, but is now quite safe, which says much for the Seikh rule.

There was not much cultivation passed to-day, although most of the surface is fit for it:  water is near the surface.  The Maha Gullah range is composed of limestone.

The white-spined Mimosa and crooked-spined one change places, the former occupies uncultivated plains, the latter stony, undulated, or hilly ground.

Carissa certainly represents Jasminum.

On the Kaliki Serai plain the chief plant is Mimosa albispina, then Bheir—­here and there patches of Leguminosa, like the Cytisoides, so common in Affghanistan.  In the Bheir thickets Schoenanthus is common; Andropogon and Pommereullioid also occur.

In the Hussun Abdul river there is a species of Perilampus approaching to Leuciscus, but with faint bars.  In the sacred stream there is a small Cyprinoid, probably a Systomus, with a conspicuous spot on either side near the tail:  there is also a small loach.

The Mahaseer in the water is a handsome fish, the edges of the scales being then blackish, as is also the longitudinal line.

It is curious that all plants hitherto found parasitical on roots, have no green leaves; to this, marked exceptions exists in Cuscuta and Cassytha, such true-leaved parasites being found only on the ascending axis; this rule is so permanent, that species of certain genera, such as Burmannia, the bulk of which are not parasitical, have no leaves.  The mode of attachment of all parasitical plants is I think the same, otherwise I should suspect the above difference to point to a marked one in the nature of the fluid derived from the stock:  thus leafless plants might be supposed to induce no particular change in the fluid they imbibe, while the others might be supposed to elaborate their own from that of the stock.

There is another very remarkable circumstance connected with the most typical leafless parasites, in their very frequent limitation to the genus Cissus, on which perhaps all Rafflesiaceae and Cynomorieae are exclusively found.

My chief reason for supposing Sarcocodon to be Monocotyledonous, or rather Endogenous, is the ternary division of its parts, and if my supposition be correct, it tends to establish, if indeed other ample evidence did not exist, the great permanence and consequent value of this numerical character.

And with respect to Sarcocoidalis I shall adopt the same opinion, if I find on enquiry that a binary number, and imperfection of the female as compared with the male, are more characteristic of Endogenous than of Exogenous growth.  This same genus I consider in both these characters to allude to some analogy with one or more Acrogenous divisions.

The establishment of the order of Rhizanths, as well as that of Gymnosperms, I consider as a retrograde step in Botanical science.  It is totally opposed to all sound principles of classification, and is a proof that, in the nineteenth century, arbitrary characters are still sought for, and when found are obstinately maintained.