on the Hortus Malabaricus, Part II. 241 
united three species in one, although he seems then to have 
learned that the Syrian kind is distinct. He adds, however, 
greatly to the confusion respecting these plants by describing the 
plant as herbaceous, and the leaves smooth. It is therefore pro- 
bable, that then he had not seen the Ericu, but described from 
the plant common in the gardens of Holland; or at least from 
some plant, which cannot well be any one of the three, that he 
quotes as synonymous : but to this I shall again return. 
Rumphius, under the name Madorius (Herb. Amb. vii. 24. 
t. 14, f. 1.), has given an excellent account of the Ericu and 
Bel Ericu, in which he justly considers the kind with the white 
flower as not differing from that of which the flower is purple. 
His figure, as usual, is not so good as his description; but, from 
what he says of the nectarium, there can be no doubt of his 
meaning this species. ** In floris centro mira conspicitur com- 
positio, pedem exhibens salinarii argentei, componitur nempe 
ex quinque circinnis et superne gerit pentagonum caseolum." 
Now the five circinni clearly describe the lower parts of the nec- . 
taria spirally revolute, which distinguish this species. The elder 
Burman in his commentary produced nothing new. Nor did his 
son (Fl. Ind. 71.) improve the synonyma, but adopts the spe- 
cific name 4. gigantea, given by Linnzus in the Species Planta- 
rum, and leaves us completely in the dark which of the plants 
included in the synonyma he meant to describe. He does not 
quote the Madorius. 
M. Lamarck (Enc. Meth. i. 280.) separates the Egyptian from 
the Indian kind, so as to make them varieties of the same spe- 
cies, calling the former Asclepias gigantea œ, and the latter A. gi- 
gantea B; but he points out no difference between the two kinds, 
except that the flowers of the former are yellow inclining to red, 
and in the latter of a red inclining to violet, which does not well 
agree with the flower of the Ericu. From his description it 
would 
