244 Dr. Francis Hamilton's Commentary 



typographical error, the word et 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. Kex0. 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 Madoriiis. 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. 



Linnaeus early stated, that the flower of his A . gigantea dif- 

 fered considerably from that of the other species of this genus ; 

 and Mr. R. Brown in his valuable treatise on the Asclepiada 

 separated it from them, and called the new genus Calotropis ; 

 for with other recent botanists he seems to have altogether over- 

 looked the Madoriiis of Rumphius, whose name, as previously 

 given, should no doubt be retained. In the Ilortus 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 hasi pilosis of Linnffius (FL 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 



