2f50 Dr. Francis Hamilton's Comme7itary 



?iacoe and Pandi Avanacu into one species, including both the 

 American and African varieties. 



Rumphius admirably describes the Cit Avanacu vmder the 

 name of Ricinus albus {Herb. Amb. iv. 90.), noticing a double 

 variety domesticus et sylvestris, of which the former has a tinge of 

 red, while the latter is entirely pale. He also describes the 

 Fandi Avanacu under the name of Ricinus ruber (1. c. 97- t. 41.), 

 and considers them as distinct. 



Linnaeus, when he published the Flora Zeylanica, seemed to 

 be of the same opinion ; for he mentions only one species of 

 Ricinus (339.)> and quotes for it the Cit Avanacu alone. He 

 justly considers it as the Ricinus vulgaris of C. Bauhin, which 

 Plukenet and the elder Burman had rejected. 



The younger Burman (F/. In(/.306.), following Linnaeus, calls 

 this species of the Flora Zeylanica, Ricinus communis, thus need- 

 lessly changing the name given by C. Bauhin ; for Linnaeus, it 

 must be confessed, amidst many great qualities, was an insatiable 

 innovator. Burman justly considers the Ricinus albus and ruber 

 of Rumphius as the same ; but quotes only the Cii Avanacu, 

 although there cannot be a doubt that the Ricinus ruber and 

 Pandi Avanacu are precisely the same. Finally, he quotes none 

 of the authors who call the plant either African or American. 



M. Poiret {Enc. Meth. vi. 201.) gives at great length the syn- 

 onyma of the Ricinus communis, and I believe with great judge- 

 ment, including in this species the Ricinus albus and j-uber of 

 Rumphius as well as the Avanacu of Rheede, by which he no 

 doubt meant the Cit Avanacu. He considers the Ricinus ruber 

 and the African plant as belonging to the same variety, and does 

 not quote the Pandi Avanacu, probably because Rheede gives no 

 figure. 



Willdenow soon after (Sp. PI. iv. 564.) endeavours to divide 

 the species of M. Poiret into four distinct species, adding a fifth 



from 



