44 Mr. Brown, on the Proteacee of Jussieu. 
To determine how far this is the case, I have examined the 
figures published by Plukenet under the name of Leucadendros, - 
and also his Herbarium, which forms part of the Sloanean col- 
lection in the British Museum. Of his three species so named 
the first is Protea argentea, his ** Leucadendros | africana arbor 
tota argentea sericea foliis integris, Atlas Tree, D. Herman.” of- 
which the figure represents a branch without fructification, and 
a separate fruit possibly of the same plant, but rather, as I 
suspect, belonging to a different species of the same genus. - 
On the same plate is figured a single leaf, in all probability 
belonging to P. conocarpa, with the following name, ** Leuca- 
dendro similis africana arbor argentea folio summo- crenaturis 
florida, an Leucadendros. africana foliis serratis D. Herman.?” 
The separate fruit accompanying this probably does not belong 
to it, but to some species of that division of Bic 
which Mr. Salisbury has called Euryspermum. = + t 
- The third species, his “ Leucadendros. Bets d seu: beta 
cephalus angustiori folio apicibus tridentatis," is a good Adone of a 
flowering branch of Protea cucullataa » = = shat 
It could not certainly from his publications ER be under- 
stood why the name Leucadendros is applied to these three: 
plants so little alike, while different names are given to species: 
much more nearly related to some of them than they are to each’ 
other: of this however the solution is to be found in his Her- 
barium; on consulting which I find, that after the publication of 
Protea argentea, with whose flowers he was unacquainted, he 
had acquired flowering specimens of Protea hirta, and had sups 
posed these two species to be the same, pasting between two leaves 
of argentea four loose heads of hirta, and under the whole copying © 
in his own hand the name Leucadendros, &c. at full length from 
his-Phytographia. This satisfactorily explains why he referred 
P. cucullata 
