28 THE JOURNAL OF BOTANY 



*'JOHN" EOXBURGH. 



By Sir Datid Train, C.M.G., C.I.E., T.R.S. 



In an interesting ai-ticle on " John " Roxburgh in this Journal 

 (1918, p. 202) the Editor, reviewing the facts at his command, was 

 led to suggest that the John Roxburgh whose name finds a place in 

 the Biographical Index of British and Irish Bota?iists (First Suppl. 

 p. 215) and the '* Roxburgh, junior " alluded to in Dr. William 

 Roxburgh's Flora Indica (vol. iii. p. 338) may be the same person ; 

 further that this individual may be identical with James Roxburgh, 

 the officer who, in 1832, made himself responsible, in conjunction 

 Avith his brother Bruce Roxbm'gh, for the publication of their father's 

 Flora. Were this the case it must follow that the entry in the Index 

 is erroneous, seeing that there had been no John Roxburgh. 



The writer at once informed the Editor that there is reason to 

 believe that the entry regarding John Roxburgh in the Biographical 

 Index is substantially accurate. The present note has been prepared 

 in response to the Editor's request that the writer should give reasons 

 for the belief that the judgement arrived at twenty years ago 

 was justified. It may be explained that the writer has not hitherto 

 found it necessary to investigate the life of Dr. William Roxburgh or 

 to discuss the career of any of his sons ; this task has been under- 

 taken, more than once, by hands abler than his. He has, however, 

 had occasion to deal with the career of Dr. William Roxburgh's 

 immediate successor, Dr. Francis Buchanan (afterwards Hamilton) 

 (Ann. Roy. Bot. Garden, Calcutta, vol. i.), and, in perusing the 

 letters addressed by that distinguished officer to Roxburgh, he has 

 met w^ith various incidental allusions to members of Roxburgh's 

 family, which seem to throw light on certain points that were 

 obscure to the Editor while his careful note on "■ John " Roxburgh 

 was being prepared. The writer would also desire it to be understood 

 that the present note is supplementar}" to the Editor's valuable article 

 and is to be read in conjunction with the latter. The facts in that 

 article are not open to debate ; the only point at issue concerns the 

 deductions to wliich these facts appear to lead. 



The difficulty connected with the acceptance of the view tlwt 

 '* John " Roxburgh and '* Roxburgh, junior " are the same individual 

 lies in the fact that, as the article in the Journal shows, "John" 

 Roxburgh resided at the Cape, and was there engaged in the collection 

 of botanical specimens during the period 1801-4 ; whereas, as we 

 know from statements in the Flora Indica^ "Roxburgh, junior" was 

 occupied in the botanical exploration of Chittagong, Penang, and 

 Sumatra during the same period. The difficulty connected with the 

 identification of either of these sons with Major James Roxburgh lies 

 in the fact that — unless by reason of more strength, this officer, whose 

 death took place on 11 July, 1884, had greatly exceeded the ex- 

 tended span of fourscore j^ears — he could hardly have been engaged 

 in botanical work, either at the Cape or in Mala3^a, between the 3^ears 

 1801 and 1804. 



The earliest reference to John Roxburgh with which the writer 

 has met. occurs in a letter dated 15 Mav, 1793, addressed to 



