LEIIMANN's PUGILLUS 293 



'* Index s(;liolarum in Haniburgensium gynmasio academieo in 

 pasclia 1828 usque ad pascliam 1829 habendaruni, editus ab Joan. 

 Georg. Ohristiano Lebnianno (etc.). Continetur his plagulis pugillu.s 

 novaruni quarundam plantai-uni in botanico Haniburgensium horto 



occuiTentium Hami)urgi, 1828." 



The most important of the corrections necessitated by this dis- 

 covery relates to the eight species of (Jacti, which, in the absence of 

 the original issue, I had concluded were lirst published in Nov. Acta, 

 xvi. (1882) and interpolated by Lehmann in his reissue of Fitgillus i. 

 For this inference and what is based upon it there is no foundation ; 

 the Cacti appear in the original just where they did in the reissue, 

 and my misleading statement would not have been made had I been 

 aware at the time of writing of the review published in the Literatur- 

 Bericht issued with Linncea, vol. iii., to which Miss Alice C. Atwood, 

 Bibliographical x\ssistant of the U.S. Department of Agriculture at 

 Washington, has called my attention. The erroneous inference that 

 the reissue was reset from the Nov. Acta was based on the fact that 

 the copy of the volume of PugilU in the Department of Botany — I 

 have seen no other — which is apparently in the original binding, 

 contains the plates from Nov. Acta, which of course were not in the 

 original issue. 



The note as to the plates {ojo. cit. xiv. 799) was, from considera- 

 tions of space, somewhat abridged in my paper: in full, after 

 " ex Indice " etc., it runs : " pugillum hunc plantarum, in Acta nostra 

 translatum, figuris quarundam stirpium rariorum exornavhnus, Cac- 

 torum, in eodem programmate illustratonun, historian! et efRgies 

 in proximum volumen Actorum reservantes." This, properly inter- 

 preted, makes it clear that the Cacti were in the original issue, from 

 v/hlch they were separated only for the purposes of the Acta. 



The four plates themselves present a certain puzzle which, although 

 of no particular impoi'tance, may be briefly indicated. Although the 

 Index Scholarum is dated 1828, the plates in Nov. Acta bear date 

 1827 — the first " June," the fourth " July " ; the first, second, and 

 fourth are signed with a monogram "CM."; the third is by a 

 different (and much superior) hand ; the name of the lithographer 

 and printer are given, but the place of production is not stated. The 

 four plates of the Cacti (Nov. Act. xvi. 1832) were printed in 

 Breslau : the first was drawn by Lehmann, the remainder are by 

 H. V. Meyer. 



I had already noted the Kcav copy of the original issue when I 

 received the interesting commvmication from Miss Alice Atwood to 

 which reference has already been made, wherein the errors corrected 

 above were pointed out. With her letter she sends an account of the 

 two sets of the PugilU in Washington, " neither of them complete 

 and both lacking the original Puc/illus : the set in the Library of 

 Congress consists of reissues, except for no. ii., while that in the 

 Library of the Department of Agriculture is made up of originals — 

 that is, of the PugilU as they appeared in the programs of the 

 Gymnasium." From this it seems that it would be of interest to 

 know whether the original Pugillus exists elsewhere than at Kew. 



James Bkitten. 



