272 Dr. Francis Hamilton'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. 73. Jig. 39- 



Although both Rheede and his annotator Commeline consider 

 all the Schorigenams as Urticce ; yet this, the very prototype of 

 the genus, belongs evidently to the order of Euphorbice ; and it 

 is therefore totally different as to genus from the plant of C. Bau- 

 hin, with which Commeline compares it. 



Plukenet {Aim. 393.) was more fortunate in comparing it 

 with a plant, which he calls Urticafolia Jamaicensis tricoccos, and 

 which probably belongs to the same genus. 



The Sckorigenam 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 {t. 92.) under the 

 name Ricinocarpos zeylanica hirsuta, foliis lanceolatis serratis : 

 2. the broad-leaved Wczlkahahilia of the Ceylonese, which is the 

 Sckorigenam; and 3. the Urticaracemosa urens fruticosa angusti- 

 folia, fructu tricocco, which is probably the plant of Plukenet. 



Linnaeus {Fl. Zeyl. 340.) considered the Kahabilia and Wal- 

 kahabilia as the same plant, and as the same with the Sckorige- 

 nam {Schorigeram, an error since pretty generally copied) ; but 

 leaves out the American plant, and calls ours Acalypka involu- 

 cris famineis pentapkyllis pinnatifidis. He says *' facies hujijs 

 plantae maxime variat;" and certainly no two plants of the 

 same genus usually differ more than the Kahabilia and Walka- 

 kabilia, as represented by Burman and Rheede. Linnaeus pro- 

 bably considered them as of the same species, because the struc- 

 ture 



