EUGENIA LUCIDA 1^1 



^EUGENIA LUCIDA Banks. 



By James Britten, E.L.S. 



The presentation by Mr. E. D. Merrill to the library of the 

 Department of Botany of a copy— one of the six prepared— of his 

 type-written Commentary on Loureiro's ' Flora Cochinchinensis' has 

 impelled me to make a list of Lom-eiro's plants in the National Her- 

 barium, adding such notes upon Mr. Merrill's admirable work as tlie 

 si>ecimens suggest. The list is not yet ready for publication, but in 

 the course of its preparation I have come upon a small matter that, 

 relating as it does to a plant unconnected with Loureiro and involving 

 the correction of an error published in the first volume of this Journal, 

 which has led even Mr. Merrill astray, may as well be printed now. 



In this Journal for 1S63 (p. 280) Seemann, writing of Loureiro's 

 genus Oj)a, cited as synonyms of his O. odorafa, Syzygium odoratum 

 DO. and S. lucidum Gaertn., adding that authentic specimens of 

 Loureiro's plant were in the British Museum. If this synonymy had 

 been accurate, Gaertner's name for the species, as being the oldest, 

 would undoubtedly stand, although I do not think the plant could be 

 called Eugenia luclda Banks, as Ga)rtner published it as Syzygium, 

 citing Banks's herbarium name as a synonym. 



Mr. Merrill, accepting Seemann's determination, as, in view 

 of the reference to Loureiro's specimens, he was justified in doing, 

 takes up lucida as the trivial name, citmg Ojm odorata Lour, and 

 >S'. odoratum DC. as synonyms. Gaertner's plant, however^ which wi 

 onl 



Arnott (Bot. Beech. 187) also quote S. lucidum doubtfully under 

 their S. odoratum, which they say "agrees much better with the 

 description given by Loureiro than with the character of De Candolle." 

 A discussion of 8. odoratum is, however, beyond my present purpose, 

 which is to clear up the confusion which has surrounded >S'. lucidum. 



The promulgation of the erroneous identification is due to See- 

 mann, who cites positively what De Candolle had regarded as doubt- 

 ful. Seemann was by no' means a careful worker, and often took his 

 references at second hand ; he must have done in this case, for had 

 he referred to Gaertner's figure of the fruit of S. lucidum (t. xxxiii), 

 he would have seen that it could not belong to Loureiro's Opa 

 odorata. 



In this Journal for 1899 (p. 248) I have given the history of 

 Gaertner's plant, the sheet containing which had lain unnoticed in the 

 Banksian herbarium for more than a hundred years until I found it 

 among unidentified species at the end of Eugenia. It was^ not seen 

 by Beiitham when engaged on the Flora Australiensis — his investi- 

 gation of the National Herbarium was always somewhat perfunctory, 



.nly known from his description and figure, was cited by De Candolle 

 Prodr. iii. 17; 1828) with an expression of doubt; Hooker and 



and was practically limited to an examination of the arranged species 

 from Banks and Solander and of Robert Brown's herbarium, which at 

 that period was Bennett's private property and so was not incor- 

 porated in the general collection. The sheet, which is endorsed in 

 Drvandcr's hand ''New South Wales: Endeavour's Kivcr. J. B." 

 (Banks) bears the names, also written by him, '' Eugenia lucida 



