274 Dr. Francis Hamilton's Commentary 



the Tragia hispida {JVilld. 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- 

 neeus 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 Chamcelea. 



Batti Schorigenam, p. 75. fig. 40. 



Commeline considers this as a species of Urtica called Pino, 

 and described as a Brasilian plant by Piso ;- but their identity is 

 very doubtful, although so far as to their being both Urtica 

 seems entitled to some regard. 



Plukenet thought that this Schorigenam might possibly be the 

 same with his Urtica genus Indianiim minime pungens {Aim. 394.), 

 or with his Liipulo vulgari similis, India orientalis,floribus in spicam 

 ex origine foliorum prodeuntem {Aim. 229- Phyt. t. 201. f. 5.). 

 The former cannot be the Batti Schorigenam cujus folia adu7'en- 

 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 



