NOTES. 
Prunus japonica. Vol. 1. fol. 27. 
It is asserted, in a late fasciculus of Curtis’s Botanical Magazine (fol. 
2176), that the plant of the above article is the undoubted AMYGDALUS 
pumila of Linnaeus, and the stone of its fruit of the nature of that ascribed to 
AMYGDALUS as distinguished from PRunus, while it is suggested that our 
plant may not even belong to the species we have given it for. 
In regard to the nature of the fruit-stone, we have only to observe that we 
found it decidedly of the kind proposed as the distinguishing characteristic of 
PRUNUS, being granularly roughened, but neither pitted, punctured, nor 
scored as in AMYGDALUS. This state of the stone was also observed by 
Mr. Lindley. The fruit has moreover the long pliant stalk of PRUNUS, not 
the short rigid one of AMYGDALUS. 
If our plant is to be the AMYGDALUS pumila of Linnzus, it must 
be so in defiance of an important character attributed to that species in the 
description of it; namely, “ a sessile flower,” since in our plant the flower has 
a stalk sometimes litile less than an inch in length, and always longer than the 
flower itself. Linnaeus has also drawn a character for that species from the 
“ petals being longer than the tube of the calyx;" but in our plant there exists 
no proportion between those parts which can suggest such point of compa- 
rison. It is true that a figure is cited by Linnzeus from Plukenet for a 
synonym, where the flowers are really stalked, and which figure probably re- 
presents a variety of our plant. This we believe is the only circumstance that 
ever suggested the idea of the plant being the Linnean AMYGDALUS pumila. 
But then a species from Hermann is also cited as a correlative synonym; and 
his figure represents a plant with sessile flowers, and his description tells us, 
that the fruit is downy and like a small peach, while that of our plant is 
smooth and like a small plum or sloe. It is also true that a sample of our 
plant is to be found in the Banksian Herbarium inscribed AMYGDALUS 
pumila; but then it is not one of those which are marked as having been de- 
termined by collation with the Linnean Herbarium, and can only speak the 
opinion of the person who inscribed the name. If actually there, at the 
time the two Herbariums were collated, the want of that mark would in- 
deed go to prove that the identity of the two was not satisfactory even to 
the person who put the title on the sample. We lay little stress upon the 
plants of Linnaeus, Plukenet, and Hermann, being considered as African, 
though our plant is known to be Chinese, as that is a circumstance very 
liable to mistake. ; ; re 
it is possible that our plant may be the PRUNUS sinensts of Persoon; be- 
cause itis a true Prunus and from China; but that author could have no 
other foundation for believing it the AMYGDALUS pumila, than Plukenet's 
re. 
E to the objection to our plant being the PRUNUS Japonica, m 
Thunberg has described the leaves of that species as ‘ smooth if om E 
while in our plant they are wrinkled (rugosa); we shall only remarl n - 
term used is ** utrinque glabra,” and that in leaves of this nature T E yo en 
the epithet glabra so qualified can only apply to pubescence; and the leaves 
of lant h one. 
"Upon the bob Mid it appears to us that the following ipm 
may be added to the above article, although, excepting that from Hortus 
Kewensis, they are very questionable. _ 
Prunus inci. Pond syn. 2. 36? (vix tamen quoad s «dr PR x dd 
Amygdalus pumila. Hort, Kew. ed. 2. 3. 195; (fide Herb. Banks, ); 
tamen Linnei? 
