274 Dr. Francis HamiLToN’s Commentary 
the Tragia hispida (Willd. Sp. Pl. iv. 323.) ; for the lower leaves 
of this latter are as much serrated as those of the T. involucrata, 
although the upper ones are not so, and such alone may have 
been on the specimens which Willdenow saw. The real dif- 
ference between the T. hispida and T. involucrata is, that the 
leaves of the former are cordata and of the latter ovata. "The 
former, it must be observed, is that which in the Botanical Gar- 
den near Calcutta, after the death of Dr. Roxburgh, I found, 
called Tragia involucrata. 
In the Hortus Kewensis (v. 255.) neither Burman nor Lin- 
nus is quoted, so that we can only judge of what plant is meant 
by the term caule scandente used in the specific character. 
I have never seen the Schorigenam ; but on comparing the 
T. involucrata, that is, Burman's plant, and the T. hispida, with 
the figure and description of Rheede, I have no doubt that, al- 
though different from the Schorigenam as a species, it belongs to 
the same genus ; which is more than can be said for several of 
the Tragias, for instance the Chamelea. 
BATTI SCHORIGENAM, p.15. fig. 40. 
Commeline considers this as a species of Urtica called Pino, 
and described as a Drasilian plant by Piso; but their identity is 
very doubtful, although so far as to their being both Urtice 
seems entitled to some regard. 
Plukenet thought that this Schorigenam might possibly be the 
same with his Urtice genus Indianum minime pungens (Alm.394.), 
or with his Lupulo vulgari similis, Indie orientalis, floribus in spicam 
ex origine foliorum prodeuntem (Alm. 229. Phyt. t. 201. f. 5.). 
The former cannot be the Batti Schorigenam cujus folia aduren- 
tia ; but Plukenet's figure of the Lupulo vulgari similis &c. has so 
strong a resemblance to the figure of Rheede, that I should think 
them probably intended to represent the same plant, did not 
Plukenet's 
