292 Alhamj Min^enm Eecordf^. 



Mr. J. G. Baker writes in Balfoui-'s "Botany of Socotra "" 

 (1888, p. 291) : "Botanists and phai-niacists have supposed that the 

 plant that furnished it" [the Aloes from the island of SocrotraJ 

 "was an Aloe figured in 1G97 by Commelinua fi-om the Medical 

 Garden at Anisterdam under the nauie af A.l'>e succotnna fiore 

 jmr/mri'o — a species which was called Aloe verte by Philip Miller,. 

 and has been characterised by Latrrarck and several later authors 

 under the narae of Ahre succntrina. By the researches of Mr. 

 Bolus this plant has now been ascertained to be really a native of 

 the Ca})e of Good Hope." However,, the plant which Mr. Baker 

 thought to be A. succotriyia (Bolus No. 2G8xS) is now referred by 

 him to .4. //?<«nc?e/is, Haw, (Flora Cap. VI., p 32H), Tlirough the 

 kindness of Dr. Bolus I have been able to examine his No. 2688,. 

 and it is certainly identical wath MacOwan's No. 1825 in the Cape- 

 Government Herbarium, also referred by Mr. Baker to A- 

 jjluridens. MacOwan's No. 1825 in the Herbarium of the Albany 

 Museum, from the same locality, has, however, leaves in which the. 

 marginal prickles are smaller than in the specimen preserved in? 

 the Government Herbarium, and besides they are not so much 

 curved forward. If, therefore, these specimens are rightly 

 referred to A. pluridens. Haw,, the question arises whether A^ 

 pluridetis. Haw,, is distinct from A, succotrina, Lam. In care- 

 fully studying Commelin's original figure and description, I have 

 come to the conclusion that there can scarcely be any doubt that 

 it is the same plant as represented by Bolus No. 2688, and 

 MacOwan No. 1825, and that, therefore, they must l)e referred ta 

 A. succotrina, Lam., and A. phiridens is a synonym of the latter. 



Now, the typical A. jjluridens. Haw., as represented by the 

 specimens mentioned above, seems to come so close to- A ^purpnra- 

 scens. Haw., as figured by Salm-Dyck (sec. 22, fig, 2) that they can- 

 not be separated as distinct species, and as many previous writers, 

 agree that A. inirpnrascens, Haw., and A. succotrina. Lam., as- 

 figured in Bot. Mag. t. 472, and by Salm-Dyck (sec. 22 fig.I) ai-e the 

 same species, and A. pluridens sometimes approaches this plant in 

 the shape of the marginal prickles, which seems to be the only- 

 tangible difference, I am of opinion that all these species should 

 be united, and the synonymy would then stand as follows : 



