LExtracted from 'Tug JovnNAr or Boraxv.—Vol. 58. 
December, 1920.] 
 BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTES. 
LXXXII. Tug Dares or Ruxkepe's * Hogrus MALABARICUS. 
Ennons in dates, like misspelled names, once committed to print, 
are difficult to get rid of. As a number of modern library catalogues 
have stumbled over the dates of Rheede's Hortus Indicus Mala- 
baricus,it is apparent that some earlier records whieh explain the 
discrepancies afe in danger of being overlooked. 
Among a dozen catalogues examined, at least three uncritically 
accept the misprinted date 1673 for Pars iv.—nor can we assume that 
in all eases where inclusive dates are stated correctly, the intervening 
volumes have all been carefully serutinized. While many cataloguers 
place their chief reliance on Pritzels Thesaurus, one would suppose 
that their curiosity would be roused, at least, by finding the date for 
this volume given as 1683 in the second edition of Pritzel (1872-77), 
though the first (1851) gives it as *'(errore) 1673 (1683)," an 
explanation unhappily omitted in the revision of the bibliography. 
Seguier (Bibl. Bot., 1740) and Miltitz (Bibl. Bot., 1829) merely give 
the correct date without comment. Dryander however (Cat. Bibl. 
Banks. iii. 179, 1797) gives it as '* 1673 (1683)," while Haller ( Bibl. 
Bot. i. 589 (1771), says: **Tomus iv. De arboribus fructiferis mala- 
barieis ... 1683 (male 1673)." As definite proof that Pars iv. was 
actually published in 1683, one may cite the review of this volume 
in cta. Eruditorum anno MDCLXxxIV. (2. e. for 1683), p. 159, which 
quotes the title quite fully, though it gives the date 1683 without 
comment. Every copy of the Hortus Malabaricus ought to have 
this correction noted on the title of Pars iv. to avoid future confusion. 
Beside the date of Pars iv., the work offers another stumbling 
block to the cataloguer in the title-page for the first volume. Although 
published in 1678, many copies do not have the original title, but the 
one dated 1686, which was reprinted verbatim from that of pars vi., 
but with the sole change of the volume number; hence we frequently: 
find 1686-1703 carelessly given as inclusive dates for the entire 
work. Dryander (7. c.) explains the dates of pars i. as follows :— 
* Duae adsunt editiones Tomi 1mi, quarum utraque in titulo impresso 
habet annum-1678, sed. in titulo seulpto, altera.1678, altera 1680." 
l have not been able to confirm this distinetion between the printed 
and engraved titles; in copies I have seen both are alike, and 
judging from information in various catalogues, copies with both 
dates in the first volume cannot be common. Such a possibility, 
however, is suggested by the copy in the John Crerar Library of 
Chieago, with an engraved title dated 1682 in the first volume, 
though its main title-page has the original date 1678, while Pars iii. 
(1682) also has an engraved title of the same date, but not identical 
with that in pars i — Again, the Gray Herbarium of Harvard 
University has two sets of the first six volumes, with imprints vary- 
ing considerably, though the dates are the same for the respective 
volumes, and in one of them Pars i. (1678) even has a totally different 
printer's device, a basket of flowers in place of the usual landscape 
enclosed by the motto: ** Non aestas est laeta Diu, componite nidos." 
"These examples indicate that almost any combination of dates might 
have been possible in early volumes. 
