erd 
65 
sticking in abundance to the inflorescence of a specimen 
gathered in flower, between Ghorian and Khaff. It is un- 
doubtedly the secretion of the plant, and has been obligingly 
identified for me by Mr. Pereira. It is however deserving 
notice that a lump of Gum Ammoniac itself, from the 
neighbourhood of Ghorian, was mixed with numerous fruits 
of a Ferula, but not with one of the Dorema. 
106. The discrepancy between the statements of Pallas 
and Kæmpfer, as to the origin of Asafætida, is not settled ; 
Sir J. McNiell’s collection not answering to the statements 
of either. Three samples of Asafcetida fruit were sent home, 
none of which belong either to F. persica or F. asafcetida ; 
one of the samples is near the former species, but the fruit is 
broader and larger, corresponding with it however in thick- 
ness, and in the almost total want of a thin margin; the 
other two samples are different from each other, as well 
as from fruit formerly sent from Persia, and described by me 
in the Flora Medica, No. 97, as those of the true F. asafcetida; 
they more resemble the F. Hooshee, No. 100 of the same 
work, but are larger, and have their dorsal vittæ much 
elevated and undulated. From this I think we must con- 
clude that Asafcetida is collected indiscriminately from 
various species of Ferula found wild in Persia, and that it is 
not the produce of any one species in particular. 
107. Of Galbanum, what has been thought to be the 
fruit has been described by Professor Don, from specimens 
found sticking to samples of the imported drug; but there 
is nothing to shew that the drug and the fruit belonged to 
each other, and I think that the evidence now in my pos- 
session renders it probable that there was no connection 
between the two. Sir J. McNiell sent home specimens 
of a plant called a 2nd sort of ammoniacum, gathered near 
Durrood, June 27, 1838, to the branches of which are sticking. 
lumps of a pale yellow waxy gum resin, which I took for 
Galbanum, and upon which Mr. Pereira, who has examined 
it, makes the following remark :—** It is not asafcetida ; it is 
not ammoniacum ; neither does it accord with either galba- 
num or sagapenum, as met with in the shops or in my 
museum. Both these substances, however, vary somewhat in 
their properties, and therefore I could not deny the identity 
