272 Dr. Francis HaMirToN's Commentary 
a native of both Indies, omitting altogether Africa; so that the 
observation of Ammannus still remains to be cleared up; but 
I have no opportunity. Specimens of the Cattu Gasturi have 
been lodged in the Collection of the East India Company. 
SCHORIGENAM, p. 13. fig. 39. 
Although both Rheede and his annotator Commeline consider 
all the Schorigenams as Urtice ; yet this, the very prototype of 
the genus, belongs evidently to the order of Euphorbie ; and it 
is therefore totally different as to genus from the plant of C. Bau- | 
hin, with which Commeline compares it. 
Plukenet (Alm. 393.) was more fortunate in comparing it 
with a plant, which he calls Urticefolia Jamaicensis tricoccos, and 
which probably belongs to the same genus. 
The Schorigenam came afterwards to be described by several 
authors, all of which probably are carefully enough collected by 
the elder Burman under the title of Ricinocarpos (Thes. Zeyl. 
202.), which includes, I think, three species: 1. the narrow- 
leaved Kohabilia of the Ceylonese, figured (¢. 92.) under the 
name Ricinocarpos zeylanica hirsuta, foliis lanceolatis serratis : 
2. the broad-leaved Welkahabilia of the Ceylonese, which is the 
Schorigenam ; and 3. the Urtica racemosa urens fruticosa angusti- 
folia, fructu tricocco, which is probably the plant of Plukenet. 
Linnæus (FI. Zeyl. 340.) considered the Kahabilia and Wel- 
kahabilia as the same plant, and as the same with the Schorige- 
nam (Schorigeram, an error since pretty generally copied); but 
leaves out the American plant, and calls ours Acalypha involu- 
cris fœmineis pentaphyllis pinnatifidis. He says ‘facies hujus 
plantæ maxime variat;" and certainly no two plants of the 
same genus usually differ more than the Kahabilia and Welka- 
habilia, as represented by Burman and Rheede. Linnæus pro- 
bably considered them as of the same species, because the struc- 
ture 
