xii PREFACE. 
a mere variety, was in reality a distinct species ; sometimes on the still 
cruder idea, that a plant named by one of the Missionaries must be dif- 
ferent from another of the same name sent by some other of the society. 
Frequently the change has been made without even quoting the original 
name as a synonym, a practice which has created much confusion, and 
given rise to great difficulty in unravelling the synonyms. 
Koenig's collections and manuscripts were most valuable, and are, we 
believe, still preserved among the Banksian collections in the British 
herbarium. Many of his discoveries were published in the Supplemen- 
tum Plantarum of the younger Linneus, in Retz’s observations, and by 
Schrader ; others were recorded by Vahl, who appears often, either not to 
have received names along with the specimens, or to have improperly 
substituted others for them. It is to be regretted that no attempt has 
been made to give to the world his descriptions as he left them; even at 
the present day they would tend to throw much light on eastern bo- 
tany. 
Dr John was the founder of the Missionary Garden at Tranquebar, 
into which were introduced many plants, chiefly of the Peninsula, but 
also from Ceylon. Specimens collected in this garden appear to have 
been diligently prepared, and a considerable number of them are in our. 
collection, obtained from Klein's or the Madras herbarium. These we 
have usually described, but always marked them as doubtful natives, 
when we had no evidence of the same species occurring also in a wild 
state. 
The plants distributed by Rottler were in part characterised very im- 
perfectly, by himself, in the fourth volume of the Nova Acta Acad. Nat. 
Curiosorum of Berlin (Neuen Schriften der Berl. Gesellsch. Naturf. 
Freunde) published in 1803. Others were described by Willdenow, 
Vahl, and Smith ; and frequently a new name has been bestowed without. 
any regard to that given by Rottler: this may have partly arisen from ob- - 
serving that the specimens did not agree well either as to genus or spe- 
cies with the short phrases published by him ; but European botanists 
ought to have recollected that Rottler's opportunities of instruction were 
not equal to theirs, and that even in their own works it seldom happens 
that two descriptions of the same plant are so alike as not to lead some- 
times to suspicions that distinct species might have been in view. An- 
other cause of the change of names, and also of the different characters 
given of the same plant, appears to have been the desire of naming, 
Sa - determining, and describing species from solitary and imperfect speci- 
= meng; without making any allowance for the immense variation in foliage, 
“pubescence, and even general aspect, to which all Indian plants are sub- 
ject. | 
The specimens transmitted by Klein have been principally described by - 
