BANCROFT ON THE IIOCl-GUM TREE OF JAMAICA. 137 



discussion relative to the genus of tl)is plant, because it is quite 

 clear that it is tlie Monobea coccinea of Aublet, which has been 

 lately so admirably illustrated by Martins, in his Nov. Gen. 

 et Sp, PI. Brasil, or a very nearly allied species. — Ed.] 



When doubts have long existed, or when error has been 

 prevalent, on any subject connected with science, to clear up 

 those doubts, or to point out and remove the error, is to 

 render a service to the advancement of knowledge, which 

 may sometimes be scarcely inferior to the discovery of a new 

 truth; and it is under this persuasion that 1 gladly avail my- 

 self of the opportunities and means that have been placed 

 within my reach, chiefly through the kindness of Mr Tho- 

 mas Higson, a member of this Society, in order to make 

 known a tree, which belongs to a curious natural order, the 

 Guttifer<E, that is acknowledged by all botanists to require 

 elucidation more than almost any other order, and which is 

 the more interesting as being the tree from which is really 

 derived the Gum-Resin that, under the name of Hog-Gum^ 

 has for a gi'eat length of time been highly praised, particu- 

 larly by Sir Hans Sloane, Drs Browne and Barhani, Mr 

 Long and others, for the medicinal virtues ivJiich they sup- 

 posed it to possess, and concerning the origin of which there 

 has hitherto been great confusion and error. 



That Sir Hans Sloane was entirely misled on the subject is 

 clear from his account of the tree which he believed to yield 

 the gum in question, and which therefore (at page 167 of 

 his catalogue of the plants of Jamaica, published in 1696, 

 and again at page 90 of the 2d volume of his Natural His- 

 tory of Jamaica, published in 1725,) he called " the Hog- 

 doctor-tree, or Boar-tree,"' and described as a " Terebinihus 

 maxima, pinnis paucioribus majoribus, atque rotundioribus> 

 fructu racemoso sparso," &c. He has also given a figure of 

 it in his 199th plate; but both description and figure differ 

 materially from the true Hog-Gum tree. Dr Patrick Brown 

 nevertheless appears to have I'elied so entirely upon the cor- 

 rectness of Sir Hans Sloane's information, as to have thought 

 that nothing more was required than to ascertain with greater 



Vol. IV No. 27. s 



