244. Dr. Francis HaMrrTow's Commentary 
typographical error, the word e? has been omitted, which led to 
such an appearance. It is, however, the Virginian plant of 
Parkinson alone that is now considered as the Asclepias syriaca 
(Hort. Kew. ii. 80); but the plant of Veslingius, although after- 
wards confounded with an American, was no doubt a native of 
Syria, and probably of the same genus with the Ericu. On the 
whole, Willdenow brings us back nearly to the opinion of Tour- 
nefort, giving us an Egyptian, an Indian, and a Syrian species ; 
and we have also an American kind, all of which by one or 
other have been confounded with the Ericu or Madorius. It is 
true that he quotes with doubt the Egyptian kind for his A. pro- 
cera, which is a native of Persia; but still he admits the Egyp- 
tian plant to be different from both the Indian and Syrian. 
Linneus early stated, that the flower of his 4. gigantea dif- 
fered considerably from that of the other species of this genus ; 
and Mr. R. Brown in his valuable treatise on the Asclepiade 
separated it from them, and called the new genus Calotropis ; 
for with other recent botanists he seems to have altogether over- 
looked the Madorius of Rumphius, whose name, as previously 
given, should no doubt be retained. In the Hortus Kewensis 
the Asclepias gigantea of Willdenow and the Ericu are the only 
authorities quoted for the Calotropis gigantea. What the former 
is I cannot say, as with the Ericu it conjoins the American 
plant of Seba, and the Asclepias foliis amplexicaulibus oblongo- 
ovalibus basi pilosis of Linnzeus (FI. Zeyl. 112.), which is cer- 
tainly not the Ericu, as I have already said. Of the Ericu I 
shall now give a description, in order that those who have an 
opportunity of examining the Beid el Ossars of Egypt and Syria, 
at present excluded from the botanical system, may have the 
means of pointing out how far they differ. 
Calotropis 
