SHORT NOTES 55 



SHOET NOTES. 



ExosTEMMA Saxctjd Lfci^ (Joui'ii. Bot. 1915, 188). In look- 

 ing over early volumes of the American Philosophical Society's 

 Transactions recently, I came across the title : " Medical history of 

 the Cortex ruber, or red bark ; communicated to John Morgan, M.D." 

 (Trans. Amer. Phil. Soc. v. 2, pp. 289-293, 1786). This consists of 

 an extract from a letter of Thomas S. Duche, dated London, August 9, 

 17S3, on pro]3erties of the bark, together with a letter from George 

 Davidson of St. Lucia, dated August 29, 1783, to which is appended 

 the description (not a technical one) of Cinchona Caribcea Saiicfoi 

 Lucice. This was read before the Philosophical Society, Feb. 20, 

 1784, but evidently was not published until the title-page date 

 1786, as articles of the latter date are scattered throughout vol. 2 

 of the Transactions. In trying to authenticate this species fcr 

 our catalogue, I looked up the paper in Journ. Bot., and was 

 much interested to find that the plant had not been named by 

 Davidson in Phil. Trans, vol. 74. I suppose that the earliest 

 published name is still that of Kentish, no copy of whose work is 

 available in Washington, though there is one at the Arnold Arboretum ; 

 but it is worth noting that Davidson himself actually did give a name 

 to the plant ; also that the first communication in regard to it was 

 made to the American Philosophical Society, and not the Royal 

 Society of London, where the paper was read June 24, 1784.- — 

 Marjorie P. Warner, Bibliographical Assistant, U.S. Dept. of 

 Agriculture, Washington. 



VEROxrcA BuxBAUMii. Since my note on these names was 

 published (Journ. Bot. 1917,271) I have obtained conclusive evidence 

 that V. persica Poir. is identical with V. Buxhaumii Ten., and is 

 therefore the correct name. I have myself examined the specimen of 

 persica in Lamarck's herbarium at the Paris Museum — which bears 

 the label " Veronica persica hort. Paris, du Jardin des Plantes 

 13 Juillet 1813" — and found it to agree perfectly with Euxhaumii. 

 Poiret's own type specimen now in Herb. Cosson, which is also at the 

 Museum, Poiret's plants having passed to Moquin-Tandon and from 

 him to Cosson, I was accidentally prevented from inspecting ; but 

 M. Lecomte has kindly examined it for me with the help of two 

 of his assistants, so as to make assurance doubly sure. I had sent for 

 comparison fruit of V. agrestis and specimens of Buxhaumii, gathered 

 in autumn as well as in spring in the same field near Petworth. The 

 autumn (October) specimens have fewer and much smaller corollas 

 than those gathered in May. M. Lecomte writes: (1) "The speci- 

 men of V. persica Poiret (Herbier Cosson) = 7^. ^;ers/c« of Lamarck's 

 herbarium. Poiret has added the synonym = V. Buxhaumii Ten. 

 (2) Mr. Lacaita's specimens seem to belong to the same species as 

 those of Lamarck's and Cosson's herbaria. (3) These (Lamarck's 

 and Cosson's) have not got the capsules of V. agrestis sent by 

 Mr. Lacaita." If Poiret's own identification of his specimen with 

 Tenore's species had not been overlooked for all these j^ears, doul){s 

 would not have been cast on the identity of liis F. persica. — C. C. 

 Lacatta. 



