on the Hortus Malabaricus, Part II. 281 
same plant with that which in the interior of Africa produces the 
gum called Euphorbium, and judges from fragments of the plant, 
flowers and seed-vessels mixed with the gum from Barbary, and 
compared with the Schadida Calli. If the fragments of the plant 
were large, such as a whole joint, there would be little room for 
error; but such fragments are not likely to have been mixed 
with a drug; and I doubt much, if any one from the flowers or 
capsule alone, of any species of Euphorbium, could positively 
say that it belonged to no other species, where there are so many 
nearly alike. 
Plukenet (Adm. 370.) mentions Commeline’s opinion, without 
either supporting or opposing it, and calls it Tithymalus aizoides 
triangularis nodosus et spinosus lacte turgens acre; but he consi- 
ders it as a mere variety of a plant from the Canaries, with four 
or five sides to its stem, of which he gives a figure (Phyt. t. 320. 
f.2.): but this identity is now abandoned, and the figure belongs 
to the Euphorbia canariensis (Willd. Sp. Pl. ii. 882.). 
Commeline’s opinion, however, seems to have been adopted 
by no less botanists than Tournefort and Ray, as appears from 
the elder Burman (Thes. Zeyl. 96.), who calls the plant EupAor- 
bium trigonum, spinosum, rotundifolium, and gives the synonyma 
of preceding authors. He considers as a distinct species the 
Sandra Calli of the Ceylonese, for which he quotes the Tithyma- 
lus from Canary, described by Plukenet. 
Linnzus also adopts the opinion of the Schadida Calli being 
the plant which produces the gum Euphorbium ; and he considers 
the Sandra Calli as a mere variety, rejecting, however, the plant 
from Canary described by Plukenet; nor does he state (F7. 
Zeyl. 199.) whether the gum is produced by the Schadida or 
Sandra. 3 
On account of its being supposed to be the plant which pro- 
duces the gum called by the ancients Euphorbium, this plant was 
now 
