on the Chrysanthemum Jndicum of l/ninaus. 5? 1 



Caulis herbaccus, erectus. Folia simplicia, conjata, sinuato- 



multifida, incisa, petiolata (Artemisia' facie). Flores ramos 

 terminantes, calyce imbricato sijuamis margine niembrana- 

 ceis, ut in Chrysantlwmis. Corolla plena. 



The plant of Ray's Supplement to, or third volume of, his 

 History of Plants, published in 1724, is described from a spe- 

 cimen communicated to him by the celebrated botanist Dr. NYil- 

 liam Sherard ; it had double flowers, the upper leaves being 

 narrow, oblong, and entire; the lower leaves trifid. Kay gives 

 no reference to other authors. 



These are all the descriptions and references quoted by Lin- 

 naeus. It may, I conceive, be considered that, of his two varieties, 

 the a was supposed to have a single flower, and the /3 a double 

 flower ; and I doubt much if he contemplated any other im- 

 portant difference between them. Of the authors quoted, Mo- 

 rison, Vaillant and Ray have little weight in the point to be 

 settled, for they can scarcely be considered as original describers ; 

 and to the plants of Rumphius and Rheede, which are not no- 

 ticed in the first edition of the Species Plantarum, I am not dis- 

 posed to attach much importance in the consideration of the 

 question, their accounts in many points being quite discordant 

 with the plants to which they are referred. By the figures and 

 characters of Plukenet, and by Linnaeus's own description of the 

 plant in the Flora Zeylanica, in concurrence with the specific 

 character given in the Species Plantarum, the question must be 

 principally settled. With these views, I conceive that, giving 

 proper weight to each of the preceding details, though there are 

 some differences which prevent perfect accordance, it may be 

 fairly deduced that the plant which Linnams intended to describe 

 as Chrysanthemum Indicum, had leaves much resembling those of 

 the Chinese Chrysanthemums, but that its flowers were small, 



with 



