— 271 — 



and macrophylla Sieb. The dénomination stricta, referring to the stiff erect 

 branches, was illicitly made use of. since Aiton had already employed it 

 in connection with the leaves. For the rest stricta -f- riigosa is intended to 

 embrace the same morphologicai groiip as stricta + loxa with Aiton, viz., 

 the bohea-gron^; whereas the large light-green leaves of diffusa \- macro- 

 phylla characterise the v/>/(y/s-group, vvhich von Siebold meant to subdivide 

 in this manner. 



Fortune pointed ont that the bohea variety is not grown on the 

 Bohea mountains but near Can-ton ; the plant culiivated on the Bohea 

 range is a less branched darker-leaved subvariety of the typical viridis 

 from Che-kiang Accordingly, his bohea seems to be the same as Loureiro's 

 Thea cantoniensis. As to T. cochinchincnsis Lour., it is perhaps the form 

 growing in the Shaii States or in indochina. 



Oriffith, studying the Assam tea plant, designated it with the namc 

 Camellia theifera, as compared with the Chinese form, termed C. bohea. 

 He therefore did not yet unité both groups; nor did Masters after hini. 

 (This complète fusion of ail the recognised forms of tea into one species 

 was performed by Thiselton Dyer in 1874 under the name C. theifera.) 



Watt however adopts the name Camellia Thea Link for the collective 

 species. He not only splits it into the varieties viridis and bohea as 

 LiNNAEUS did, but, in imitation of Hayne, ranks the var. stricta Aiton 

 as équivalent with the varieties just mentioned, although it was intended 

 by Aiton as a form subordinated to bohea. Besides he puts the Indian 

 large-leaved tea races, unknown yet by Linné, under viridis Linn., and 

 créâtes a var. lasiocalyx synonymous with var. pubescens Pierre. 



The classifications of Pierre and Kochs may be left out of considération as 

 they do not materially contribute to our insight into the System of tea varieties. 



Two important questions, still, remain to be settled: Ought ail 

 forms of tea to be united unto one species, and if 

 so, which name ought this species to bear? 



The first question as to the classification of the tea varieties, is, like 

 that of the Camellia species, a very thoiny one, as it is materially affected 

 by our conceptions on the nature of systematic distinctions, and our 

 décisions will turn out quite différent according as we happen to belong 

 to the class of Jumpers" or to that of „splitters", as Bateson ') puts 

 it. Now, although agreeing with this author that genetical analysis has a 

 bearing on systematics and may modify our conceptions on „blood-rela- 

 tionship" in a degree, 1 certainly cannot concur with him where he wants 

 to base our so-called natural System on genetic tests exclusively, and 

 accordingly encourages systematists to serve science „by giving names 

 „freely and by describing everything to which their successors may possibly 

 „want to refer, and generally by subdividing their material into as many 

 „species as they can induce any responsible society or journal to publish " ^) 



') W. Bateson 1913, p. il. 

 2) Ibid., p. 249. 



