— 250 — 



Then, Lettsoiw ') gave as his opinion that blacl< and green tea were 

 only one species, on the authority of Kaempfer, and moreover because the 

 numb^r of petals is very variable. Accordingly he pictures one plant only 



After 1780 the confusion begins. Thunberg in his ,, Flora laponica" 

 (1784) mentions only one species of tea, as he probably is of Lettsom's 

 opinion. He does not however call it Thea sinensis, like Linné's first (and, 

 at that time, sole) species, but Thea bo/iea, and divides it into two varie- 

 ties which he describes^) without naming them. One of them has small, 

 smooth, dark-green leaves with „straight" denticules, the other one has 

 larger, „undu!ating". light coloured leaves and „sinuate" denlicules. It is 

 not difficult to recognize the species Thea bohea L. and Thea viridis L. in 

 thèse varieties; so, Thea bohea Thunb. does not desigiiate the same thing 

 as T. bohea L but includes more than the latter. The case affords an 

 example of the arbitrary nomenclature frequently practised at that time. 



AiTON (1789) only enhanced the obscurity. His „Hortus Kewensis", 

 apparently entertaining Linné's former point of view (as lie mentions only 

 one species, Thea .bohea, characterized by 6 petals), distinguishes two 

 varieties within the species bohea, viz.3), -/. laxa and P. stricta, the former 

 exhibiting broad rugose leaves, the other narrow smooth leaves: characters 

 of hardly any importance, since Thunberg's varieties hâve ,,uneven" and 

 ,, smooth" leaves as well without representing the same forms it is simply 

 impossible to conjecture the value of Aiton's varieties; for example, it is 

 conceivable that this author, deceived by Linnaeus's character ,,6 petala"', 

 described as laxa what ought to be calied bohea and as s/r/cfû what Linné 

 named viridis^); or that he made his two new species only at a venture, 

 without having sufficient motive for doing so^). 



At al! events it is a remarkable circumstance that his contemporary. 

 the botanist Salisbury, does not mention them at ail; whereas he gives 

 two new species names of himself, viz., Thea grandifolia and T.parvifolia^), 



') J. C. Lettsom 1772, p. 2, 27. 



2) c. p. Thunberg 1784, p. 225. {Thea bohea:) ,,Dui)lex quidem occurrit luiius varietas: 

 ,,]. foliis minoribus, planis, satiiratiiis viridibus, serraturis rectis. 



,,1I. foliis maiorib.iis, iindtilatis, laetius viridibus, serraturis sinuatis. 

 „Vix tainen in species distingui possunt diversas." 



3) W. AlTON 1789, vol. II, p. 230: 



,. Bohea. 1. T. floribiis hexapetalis. Sp. pi. 734 

 laxa a. foliis eiiiptico-oblongis rugosis. 



Broad-leav'd Tea, 

 stricta p. foliis lanceolatis planis. 

 Narrow-Ieav'd Tea." 

 •*) This is the opinion of J. SiMS (1807). 



^) AiTON was a horticulturist, not a botanist; see J. Britten 1912. 

 «) R. A. Salisbury 1796, p. 370: 



„Grandifolia. 1. T. foliis obovato-lanceolatis, rugosulis. 



T. Bohea. Linn. Sp. Pi. éd. 2, p. 374. 

 Parvifolia. 2. T. foliis lanceolatis, planis. 



Faciès diversas species esse suadet, sed haec nondum mihi floruit." 

 The saine author rebaptized C. japonica C. florida! 



