152 
On the Name of the American Chestnut. 
Castanea vulgaris, var. Americana, A.DC.—The synonymy of 
this plant has received considerable attention of late, although it 
appears that the oldest name for the European type, in the un- 
settled state of which our plant may be involved, has not yet 
been taken up. 
The “ Castanea vesca, L.” of Gray’s Manual (5th Ed.) and 
Wood’s Class Book doubtless belongs correctly to Gaertner 
(1788), and was properly replaced in A.DC. (Prodr.) by the ¢. 
vulgaris of Lamarck (1783). Koch (Drendrologie, ii. Pt. 2, 20), 
however, took up an older name, the C. sativa of Miller, published 
in 1768 (Gard. Dict. ed. 8). This name has already been ap- 
proved and the American tree related to it (Gard. and For. th 
484, 1889; Catalogue N. J. Plants, 224, 1889; Gray’s Manual, 
ed. 6, 479, 1889). 
But the oldest name for the type must be the Fagus Castanea 
of Linnzeus, published in 1753 (Species Plantarum ed. 1). De 
Candolle, Koch, and others have uniformly cited Linnaeus’ name 
without question as a synonym, but, although clearly referring 
to this species, Castanea seems not to have been taken up as 4 
specific name under the genus Castanea, as it doubtless should be. 
Accepting Michaux’s varietal designation C. vesca, var. Amerita- 
na of this plant as the earliest one tenable, the name for the 
American Chestnut would then become Castanea Castanea (Linn.), 
var. Americana, (Michx. f.) 
A question may yet be raised, however, as to the oldest vat- 
ictal name for the American tree; for it seems that, Marshall 
(Arbustum Americanum, 46, 1785) was the first to describe our 
plant, and considering it a variety of the European Chestnut, 
designated it as Fagus Castanea dentata. This name antedates 
Michaux’s C. vesca, var. Americana by eighteen years, and al- 
though its identity has not been openly questioned, it has been 
generally cited as a synonym of Michaux’s later name. 
The tenability of Marshall’s name may perhaps be questioned 
from a technical point of view, as compared with that of Michaux’s, 
but in weighing carefully the meaning of Marshall's rather Joos¢ 
and jumbled description, we certainly cannot fail to discerm that | 
