92 



PROCEEDINGS OF THE 



torn out, and the remainder used for drafts oE specific descriptions 

 by the younger Carl von Liane. 



The age of the list may be placed about the middle of 1755 for 

 the following reasons: — 



The significant mark is changed in the course of transcription 

 from an underscore to a dot, apparently an afterthought when 

 copying from the book record. Another proof of the relative ages 

 of the two records may be found in this, that the supplementary 

 part of the ' Species Plantarum' (pp. 1190-1200), and two pages 

 added without pagination after ' Nomina trivialia,' are inserted in 

 their proper sequence, e. g. Thalia, p. 1193, is placed in the MS. 

 list under MonandriaMonogynia hQiweenKcerapferia and Boe^^havia, 

 and the three species of Fllago from the end, are correctly placed. 

 Too much reliance must not be placed on this, for Boerhavia diandra 

 (p. 1194) is interpolated on the first page of the MS. thus 



3 scandens, 

 5 diandra, 



4 repens. 



Again, in the list as originally drawn up we find some species 

 which were published afterwards, occupying their proper position, 

 thus seeming as if the plants were known to the compiler but 

 were awaiting their opportunity to be published. For possibly 

 two years the author seems to have added names chiefly from the 

 theses ' Demonstrationes plantarum ' resp. J. C. Hojer, Oct. 1753, 

 ' Herbarium Amboinense ' resp. O. Stickman, Maii 1754, and 

 ' Centuria plantarum I.' resp. A. D. Juslenius, Febr. 1755 ; from 

 ' Centui'ia plantarum II.' resp. E. Torner, Jun. 1756, I find only 

 one entry, and from the fact that practically all the species from 

 Cent. I. are entered and practically none from Cent. II., we may 

 conclude that the entries ceased soon after the former was printed, 

 that is in the spring of 1755, to which period I would assign this 

 catalogue. 



The list offers many points of interest, but I must confine my 

 remarks to a few only. It was written without special care, for 

 I find no fewer than eighteen species published in the ' Species 

 Plantarum ' which were overlooked and inserted afterwards, such 

 as the BoerJiavia diandra previously mentioned. Some of the in- 

 terpolations are incorrect ; the following are referred to as from 

 the ' Cent. I.,' but they will be found as noted in parentheses — 

 Bupleurum semicompositum (Dem.), Cistus liirta (Sp. PI.), Aniir 

 rhinum sparteum and A. molle (both Sp. PL), and Trifolium 

 Cherleri (Dem.). It must be noted that these citations are from 



