— 251 — 



the former of which is idcntical with Thea bohea L. (vvhy, then, a new 

 iiame?), the otlier beiiig p^/V/a/^s a distinct species. And whereas Thunberg's 

 bohea (that is to say, liis variety I) was described as having smooth leaves, 

 hère grandifolia = bohea has uneven ones Can anyone offer a solution? 

 Nor does the problem end hère. Loureiro, the author of the classical 

 work ,, Flora cochinchinensis", who has personally been at Canton for 

 some tinie, mentions ') two sorts of tea, omitting however, to tell us 

 in what respects they differ in his opinion from Linné's species T. bohea 

 and viridis, which he does not mention at ail: Thea cochinchinensis LouR. 

 (occurring both cultivated and wild in the northern provinces of Cochinchina, 

 according to him), and T. can/on/£'/]s/s LouR. (reported to live both cultivated 

 and wild near Canton) We shall see afterwards that in ail likelihood the 

 latter species is identical with 7. boliea L., but this cannot be made ont, 

 as the greater part of Loureiro's herbarium has altogether disappeared ^). 



Hence we necessarily hâve to conclude that it is impossible yet to 

 comprehend the significance of ihe ancient spécifie names: Thea bohea vars. 

 laxa and stricta Ait., Thea grandifolia and parvifolia Salisb , and Thea 

 cochinchinensis and cantoniensis LouR. We h ad best abandon the m 

 definitively. 



LouREiRO once more touches upon the question of black and green 

 tea; he feels convinced that ail différences are due to cultivation and 

 manufacture 3). Lettsom equally reverts to it in the second édition (1799) 

 of his work on the tea-tree, and again advocates the same view. It is 

 interesting however, to compare this book with its first édition and to 

 note that the picture of the „Tea Plant" of 1772 is now entitled „Green 



') J. DE Loureiro 1793, p. 338: „Thea cochinchinensis (Chè an nâm). Differ. spec. 

 „Th. calycibus siib-tripliyllis: corollis pentapetalis: floribiis solitariis, terminalibus. 



,,Hab., et notae. Arbor 8 pedes aita: raniis ditfusis. Folia lanceolata, serrata, 

 „glabra, alterna, petiolata. Flos albus, terminalis, solitarius: ca/jcf plerumque 3-phyllo, 

 „aliquando 4-5 phyllo. Petala 5, ovata, concava, patentia. Stamina 100 circiter basi 

 „corollae affixa: antheris sub-rotundis, minimis. Styhis S-fidus. Capsula 3-loba, 

 ,,3-iocularis, 1-sperma, apice dehiscens. 



«Habitat culta, incultaque in provinciis Borealibiis Cochinchinae," 



And further, p. 339: 



„Thea cantoniensis. (Ho nâm Châ yông; Chè taù). Differ. spec. Th. Calycibus 

 ,,5-6-phyllis: corollis 7-9-petalis: floribus solitariis, terminalibus. 



„Hab., et notae. Arbuscula 4-pedalis, ramosissima, tortuosa. Folia lanceolata, 

 „acute serrata, sub-crassa, incurva, subsessilia, glabra, alterna. F/os albus pedunculis 

 ,, terminalibus, 1-f loris, solitariis: Calyce 5-6-phyllo, inaequali. Corolla petala 7, 8, 9, 

 ..inaequalia, concava, patentia. Stamina 100 circiter, ad basim inter se, etcumpetalis 

 „connexa. Stylus 3-fidus, laciniis linearibus, aequalis staminibus. Capsula 3-loba, 3-cocca. 



„Habitat tam culta, quam inculta prope Cantonem Sinarum." 



2) E. Rretschneider 1881; p. 133: „From the diagnoses alone given by L., without 

 „examining the original spécimens, it is impossible to identify theni"; p. 132: „But 

 „may we not ask whether it would possible to identify even a quarter of Linnaeus' 

 „plants only from the short characters he gives, had his herbarium been lost, as is 

 „the case with the greater part of Loureiro's collection." 



3) J. de Loureiro 1793, p. 339. 



