— 259 — 



account, not thc subdivisions, varieties of thèse species. It is almost certain 

 that such siight différences were then looked upon as altogether immaterial, 

 since they were considered as mère modifications, brought about by cul- 

 tivation and environmental agencies, and equally subject to the reverse process ; 

 they were in a word „ variable", and therefore worthless for systematic 

 botany. This reasoning presumably also accounts for the neglect of preserving 

 distinct forms in a living state, exsiccated or through minute descriptions, 

 just as the localities where they grew were not kept in that intact state that 

 would hâve lent them an uncommon documentary importance in our days. 



There exists however, another cause for the extrême scarcity of 

 Griffith's Assam tea spécimens. This is, as Sir D. Prain informed me, 

 the véhément animosity existing between Griffith and Wallich. The latter 

 being at the time director of the Calcutta Herbarium, made a number of 

 Griffith 's samples, collected on their common expédition, irrecognizable 

 as such; as a conséquence those important spécimens hâve not been kept 

 together, but hâve been distributed from the herbarium of the East-India 

 Company over a number^of foreign herbaria. 



in order to redress this déplorable fact as well as possible, 1 hère 

 subjoin a list of Griffith's spécimens, which are to be found in the 

 herbaria of Kew, Leyden, Berlin and Singapore, while proposing to publish 

 more détails in the statistical division of my paper: 



1. Kew. Herb. Griff. No 771. „Sylva ad Hounghaw" 1837. 



2. Kew. ,, Assam Tea Deputatiou; Kujoodoo". 



3. Leyden. (Nr 906. 173 — 20). Herb. E. Ind. Comp. No. 771. 



4. Berlin. Herb. E. Ind. Comp. No. 771. 



5. Berlin. Herb. E. Ind Comp. No. 771. 



6. Singapore ,,ln Assam legit beatus Griffith." No. 4670? Ex Herb. 

 Mus. Brit. 



Masters, the third botanist who closely examined the Assam tea 

 plant, still occupied the same point of view as Wallich and Griffith, 

 i e., that essentia! différences between China and Assam tea do not exist. 

 He attempts to prove this by coUating the diagnoses of Assam tea, „Thea 

 Assamica Masters" ') and the Chinese plant. 1 will not quote the former 

 diagnosis as the author is too clearly prejudiced with regard to this 

 identity. „The only real différence existing between the Assam plant and 

 „the China Bohea plant", he says, „is found in the texture of the leaf. The 

 „Assam leaf is long, thin, membranaceous, often undulated; while the 

 „China leaf is short, thick, coriaceous, and generally straight*' (p. 66). 



In a subséquent paper of Masters (1863) however, we find an indi- 

 cation of the existence of varieties in Indian tea; he describes two forms, 

 „which appear to be the most désirable to cultivate for the manufacture 

 „of Tea" (p. 34). „One, with a dark, firm. lanceolate leaf, variously 



') J. W. Masters 1844, p 63. The significance of this dénomination is explained on 



p. 69 as foUows: The trivial name ..Tlica Assamica", is hère used 



..solely for the purpose of the better understanding of this paper; there being no 

 ..pecuiiarity in the plant to authorize burdening science with a new name." 



