362 Dr. WankEn-AnNorT on Samara læta, Linn. 
the end of the Sapotee or beginning of Ardisiacew. “On désire" (he adds) 
* de nouvelles observations sur le Manglilla, le Rapanea, le Samara et Y Atru- 
phyllum, pour savoir si la disposition des fleurs en faisceaux les rapproche plus - 
de Myrsine, ou si le fruit monosperme les lie davantage à l Ardisia. Ils pa- 
roissent, au moins, devoir occuper la place intermédiaire." This passage, 
containing Jussieu's later and more matured opinion on the position of 
Samara, is the more important, because Myrsine itself has a one-celled ovary, 
and therefore the only reason for not placing it in the Zfrdisiacece was dis- 
posed of. Jussieu may therefore be said, in 1810, to have virtually referred 
Samara to his Ardisiaceew, now usually called Myrsinec ; but this indication 
appears to have been overlooked, most botanists in modern times adverting 
only to the early opinion expressed in 1789 in his * Genera Plantarum. 
In 1788, Swartz published his *Nova Genera et Species Plantarum, seu 
Prodromus; and among the addenda et corrigenda to that volume, he gives a 
specific character of S. læta, Linn., in order to distinguish it from his own 
S. coriacea. That Swartz did not consider S. læta to be a West Indian plant 
is obvious from his inserting observations in the same place on Cynomorium 
coccineum and Diodia virginica. These addenda et corrigenda were probably 
written after he had seen the S. læta, Linn., or a specimen so called; but the 
specific character he has given might have been equally well drawn up from 
Linnzus's description. In the first volume of the * Flora Indiz Occidentalis, 
published in 1797, he also mentions this plant, but not as a native of the West 
Indies or belonging to his Flora: he merely says of it, when speaking of $. co- 
riacea, * Distinguitur a Samara læta, L., cui folia minora tenuiora obtusa, flores. 
conferti nec glomerati sed umbellati, pedicellis sesquilinearibus, corollz colo- 
ratiores.” Now here are some particulars which he could scarcely have gleaned 
from any portion of the Linnean description; and which lead to the conclusion — 
that, at least before 1797, he had access personally to a specimen so named, 
and which he supposed to be the Linnean plant. 
Three things must therefore be kept in view as to the species noticed by 
Swartz: Ist, he nowhere says that it is a native of the West Indies or of - 
America ; 2ndly, he merely introduces it to enable other botanists to under- 
stand better the difference between it and his own S. coriacea; 3rdly, the 
S. læta of which he speaks, he intends to be that of Linnzeus. These positions 
