INTRODUCTION, 3 
The names of plants occurring in the Chinese Classics are 
still for the most part in use and applied to the same plants 
nowadays. But in not a few cases the characters denoting 
plants in the classical period became altogether obsolete in 
later times, or lost their original meaning, and are now not 
applied to plants. Regarding such obscure characters and 
passages, the Western translator of Chinese classical 
writings finds himself constrained to rely entirely upon the 
frequently unsatisfactory commentaries of Chinese scholars 
who lived many centuries after the time of Conrvotus, and 
who never produce proofs for their assertions. Thus the 
character 4§ t‘u, which is of frequent occurrence in the Shi 
king, is said by the Chinese commentators to denote entirely 
different plants in different passages of this Classic, viz. : 
Sow-thistle, smart-weed, rushes, and it appears that this 
was also an ancient name to designate the tea-plant [comp. — 
infra, 307]. 
The character { t‘iao nowadays means the branch of a 
tree. 1t has the same meaning in the Shi king and in other 
Classics. But in one passage in the Book of Poetry the 
_ Chinese commentators make it mean the Catalpa tree 
[Lecce says white fir] comp. infra, 511. The Rh ya, 236, 
gives t‘tao as a name for the pumelo. The character #¥ ‘i, 
in the Classics, is said by some authors to mean millet, others 
take it to be lettuce (comp. énjra, 346, 364]. 
Considering these difficulties encountered in the critical 
investigation of ancient Chinese writings, and especially in 
ascertaining the correct meaning of characters applied to 
plants in early ages, the reader must not expect a completely 
_ satisfactory botanical elucidation of the matter, the design 
_ of this paper being merely to show what can be done in the 
way of botanical explanation of Chinese classical names of 
plants, 
