58 MR. J. MIERS ON THE BARRINGTONIACE. 
and it is little more than a copy of Forster's drawing; so also is the plate given in the 
narrative of Cook's first voyage, and in a wrong place, with an apology from the editor 
for the omission of any details. 
Тһеге are some circumstanees in the history of this species in relation to the two 
Forsters that are deserving of notice. John R. Forster, a botanist of some standing, and 
a friend of Linnzus, was appointed to the * Resolution' in 1772, on the second voyage 
of Cook, as botanist to the expedition, with the assistance of his son George, then only 
seventeen years of age, as draughtsman. After three years’ absence they returned to 
England in 1775. Ц was previously agreed that the two Forsters should describe the 
history of the voyage, the profits of which were promised to them. On presenting the 
first portion, the Lords of the Admiralty would not sanction it unless many obnoxious 
passages were expunged. This the Forsters refused to do, and withdrew in disgust, 
the elder to Germany in 1776, where he was appointed Professor of Natural History at 
Halle, remaining there till he died іп 1798. His son George at the same time retired to 
become Professor at Cassel, and afterwards to Mayence as librarian to the Elector; here 
entering into the excitement of the French revolution, he went to Paris as deputy to the 
National Assembly. During his absence the Germans stormed and took Mayence, when 
all his books and papers were lost, and, bereft of all his property, he left France in 
despair and went to India, where he died in 1794. Bearing in mind these dates, we find 
that Linnzeus published the diagnosis obtained from the younger Forster a year after 
his return from his voyage, and in the same year that Forster’s ‘Char. Gen.’ was 
published. In that work the new genus Barringtonia has as its synonym the Butonica 
of Rumph, tab. 114; that was adopted by Linneus with the addition of another 
synonym, Mammea asiatica, Linn. It is worthy of remark that in that copious 
diagnosis no notice is taken of the singular nectary, which forms one of the most 
peculiar features of the genus ; on the other hand, in the details of the species, said by 
Guillemin to be in the handwriting of Forster, this nectary is fully described, and the 
synonyms above mentioned are also given. Тһе character of the fruit, especially of the 
seed, as given by the Forsters in their ‘Char. Gen., is there wholly suppressed, and in 
its place a description of that of Rumph’s Butonica is substituted. Another reference 
is given, to DC. Prodr., published many years after the death of the two Forsters. We 
may therefore infer that there has been a little tampering with the original MS. in both 
cases, apparently to suit the views of other persons. 
Kerner in 1796 published a beautiful drawing of Barringtonia speciosa, copied from 
that of G. Forster; but he added to it the fruit of Rumph’s Butonica, tab. 114, instead of 
the fruit and seed so clearly figured by the two Forsters. This plate is accompanied by 
а description copied from that of the younger Linnzeus. 
Van Houtte (Fl. Serr. vol. iv. tab. 409) published coloured drawings purporting to 
represent Barringtonia speciosa; but these were copied from Paxton’s without acknow- 
ledgment ; this I have noticed more particularly under Agasta asiatica. Four. years 
later he published (op. cit. vol. vii. р. 23) a monograph of the Barringtoniacee, as- 
sumedly from the pen of Blume, where, beginning with B. speciosa, he gives to it a 
whole page of synonyms and references belonging to numerous other species, including 
