362 Dr. Walker-Arnott on Samara Iseta, Linn. 



the end of the Sapotece or beginning oi Ardisiacece. " On desire" (he adds) 

 " de nouvelles observations sur le Manglilla, le Rapanea, le Samara et \Atru- 

 phyllum, pour savoir si la disposition des fleurs en faisceaux les rapproche plus 

 de Myrsine, ou si le fruit monosperme les lie davantage k YArdlsia. lis pa- 

 roissent, au inoins, devoir occuper la place interm^diaire." This passage, 

 containing Jussieu's later and more matured opinion on the position of 

 Samara, is the more important, because Myrsine itself has a one-celled ovary, 

 and therefore the only reason for not placing it in the Ardisiaceos was dis- 

 posed of. Jussieu may therefore be said, in 1810, to have virtually referred 

 Samara to his Ardi^iaceoe, now usually called Myrsineoe ; but this indication 

 appears to have been overlooked, most botanists in modern times adverting 

 only to the early opinion expressed in 1789 in his ' Genera Plantarum.' 



In 1788, Swartz published his 'Nova Genera et Species Plantarum, seu 

 Prodromus ;' and among the addenda et corrigenda to that volume, he gives a 

 specific character of S. leeta, Linn., in order to distinguish it from his own 

 S. coriacea. That Swartz did not consider S. Iceta to be a West Indian plant 

 is obvious from his inserting observations in the same place on Cynomorium 

 coccineum and Diodia virginica. These addenda et corrigenda were probably 

 written after he had seen the S. Iceta, Linn., or a specimen so called ; but the 

 specific character he has given might have been equally well drawn up from 

 Linnaeus's description. In the first volume of the ' Flora Indiae Occidentalis,' 

 published in 1797, he also mentions this plant, but not as a native of the West 

 Indies or belonging to his Flora : he merely says of it, when speaking of S. co- 

 riacea, " Distinguitur a Samara Iceta, L., cui folia minora tenuiora obtusa, flores 

 conferti nee glomerati sed umbellati, pedicellis sesquilinearibus, corollse colo- 

 ratiores." Now here are some particulars which he could scarcely have gleaned 

 from any portion of the Linnean description ; and which lead to the conclusion 

 that, at least before 1797j he had access personally to a specimen so named, 

 and which he supposed to be the Linnean plant. 



Three things must therefore be kept in view as to the species noticed by 

 Swartz: 1st, he nowhere says that it is a native of the West Indies or of 

 America ; 2ndly, he merely introduces it to enable other botanists to under- 

 stand better the difference between it and his own S. coriacea ; 3rdly, the 

 S. Iceta of which he speaks, he intends to be that of Linnaeus. These positions 



