492 swingle: Chinese tree of heaven 



ticular insisting that d'Incarville's supposed China varnish tree 

 was distinct from the Japanese false varnish tree. To sub- 

 stantiate his claim he figured side by side a leaf from d'Incar- 

 ville's tree grown in Mr. Webb's garden and one of Kaempfer's 

 false varnish tree from the Sherardian herbarium at Oxford. 

 He also examined Kaempfer's specimens in the British Museum. 

 It is but just to say that in this contention Ellis has been fully 

 justified by later botanists. 



In neither of his articles did Ellis adopt the Linnaean trivial 

 names introduced in the Species Plantarum, published in 1753 

 (only two to four years before) , and so did not publish a name for 

 the Tree of Heaven valid under our present rules of nomenclature. 



This appears to have been done for the first time in 1774 

 when Houttuyn in his Natuurlyke Historie reprinted Ellis's Latin 

 diagnosis with the second word set off in parentheses and printed 

 in italics, thus: "Rhus (Sinense) Foliis alatis, Foliolis oblongis 

 acuminatis, ad basin subrotundis et dentatis." This is a method 

 of publishing trivial names adopted by Linnaeus in editing the 

 works of travel written by his pupils and also used a few years 

 previously by Philip Miller in the 8th edition of his Gardeners' 

 Dictionary, published in 1768. As Ellis had in the meantime 

 adopted the Linnaean nomenclature, 6 it was perfectly proper for 

 Houttuyn to make effective Ellis's vigorously expressed view 

 that the Tree of Heaven constituted a new species of Rhus dis- 

 tinct from the Chinese lacquer or varnish tree and from the 

 Japanese false varnish tree. 7 



Owing to the delay in the publication of Ellis's name it was, 

 unfortunately, antedated by Toxicodendron altissimum, published 

 by Philip Miller in the eighth edition of his Gardeners' Dictionary 



6 In 1708 he wrote an account of the famous Venus fly trap, naming it Dionaea 

 muscipula. 



7 The fact that this tree was not listed as a separate species by Houttuyn, but 

 was merely referred to incidentally in his account of Rhus Vernix L., does not 

 invalidate this publication, since he refers in the same way on a preceding page 

 to Rhus succedanea published by Linnaeus, whom he professes to follow. Fur- 

 thermore, though he refers to Ellis's species under Rhus Vernix L., he could not 

 have meant it as a synonym, since he says it seems to be more nearly related to 

 Rhus javamca L., which he describes in another place. 



