242 Dr. Francis HAMILTON'S Commentary 
would appear, that the plant he meant grew as high as a 
man, and was covered every where with a white wool, except on 
the upper side of the leaves: so that he probably described a 
kind different from that ** caule herbaceo foliis glabris," which 
Linnzeus described in the Flora Zeylanica. From his synonyma 
it would appear, that ''ournefort, in himself an host, considered 
the Egyptian, Syrian and Malabar kinds as different species. 
Along with the first Lamarck only quotes as synonyma the Beid 
el Ossar of P. Alpinus, Miller's Dictionary, and an account by 
Jacquin. Along with the Malabar plant of Tournefort, he quotes 
the Ericu of Rheede, Plukenet and Seba. ‘The latter is an Ame- 
rican plant; and he admits that Plukenet's figure represents 
badly the plant he meant to describe, and no wonder ; for, as I 
have said, it was only quoted by mistake for the Ericu, and 
probably represents the Beid el Ossar of Egypt. Even therefore 
in the A. gigantea B of Lamarck we have three plants united. - 
Following Linnæus in his second edition of the Species Planta- 
rum, and subsequent works, M. Lamarck (281.) describes the 
Syrian plant as a different species (A. syriaca); and to this 
probably belong (although not quoted by Lamarck) all the syno- 
nyma quoted by Plukenet for the Syrian kind, except the Ame- 
rican plant of Parkinson, which is perhaps the 4. purpurascens 
(Enc. Meth. i. 281.), or at least the Apocynum erectum novebora- 
cense foliis minus incanis, flore ex obsoleto dilute purpurascente of 
Hermann, which was possibly the herbaceous smooth-leaved 
plant described by Linnæus, and which no doubt would thrive 
in the open air of Holland. 
Willdenow (Sp. P/. i. 1263.) totally separates the A. gigantea « 
of Lamarck, that is, the plant of Jacquin quoted by the French 
botanist, from the Asclepias gigantea, calling it A. procera. For 
this he quotes, but with doubt, the plant figured by Plukenet as 
above mentioned; and also, with a similar doubt, the Beid ei 
Ossar 
