ARRUDa's BRAZILIAN PLANTS. 249 



ceding species, but is ligneous and flexible, and can easily be broken; 

 it is covered with a layer of astringent pulp. The almond is a seed 

 composed of two oily cotyledons of a disagreeable taste, but abounding 

 m oil, of which some use is now made." — Koster, 500. Sir Joseph 

 Hooker {I. c.) says, "Oiti-cica, PL. umhroslsdmam e deserto Pernam- 

 bucano ad descriptas species reducere non audeo." 



PsiDiuM piGMEUM. Murangaba. Koster, 492. 



" This is a species of goiaha plant which does not attain more 

 than two or three feet in height ; it abounds in the chapada of the 

 Serra Araripe of Cariri Novo." — I. c. This may be P. hiunile Veil., 

 but in the absence of material it cannot be decided, especially as 

 the name " Marangaba" is not taken up by Miers or in the books. 

 It seems, however, to be known to travellers : Gardner (Trav. in 

 Brazil, 193) says he found "on the top of the Serra a species 

 called Marangaba ; it is the Psidium pigmeuni of Arruda, a shrub 

 from one to two feet high, the fruit of which is about the size of a 

 gooseberry, and is greatly sought after on account of its delicious 

 flavour, which resembles that of the strawberry." 



Mr. Jackson cites " pggm(£um Veil, ex Steud. = pigmseum," and 

 this suggests a remark on the way in which bogus names get into 

 circulation. For, in the first place, Steudel does not say "pyg- 

 maeum Veil.," but "pygmaeum Arruda," and by so doing he merely 

 means to correct Arruda's spelling — just as Mr. Jackson himself 

 does when he writes "pigmaeum Arruda," for Arruda wrote "pig- 

 meum."* I do not say that Steudel's spelling should not have 

 been quoted, but I am curious to know what will be done in the 

 future with " pygmaeum Veil." Vellozo never used the name: will 

 future index-makers have to enter " pygmaeum Veil, ex Jacks." 2 



RiBEiREA soRBiLis. Mmigaheira. Koster, 499. 



I have already cited Arruda's account of his dedication of the 

 plant. Jackson doubtfully refers it to Rosacea, but Miiller (Fl. 

 Bras. vi. i. 186), Miers, and others identify it with Hancornia 

 speciosa B. A. Gomes in Mem. Acad. Scieuc. Lisboa, iii. (Mem. dos 

 Corresp. 51, t. i.), and this identification is clearly correct. If the 

 date of the publication of Gomes's paper were, as accepted by 

 Jackson and by authors generally, 1812, Arruda's name Pdbeirea 

 (1810) would have to replace Hancornia (1812). But it appears 

 that Gomes's paper appeared first as an independent publication in 

 Lisbon in 1803, f and was subsequently reprinted in the Memorias.l 

 The date to be assigned to Hancornia must therefore be 1803, not 

 1812 as given in Index Kewensis. 



Hancornia commemorates an Englishman who finds no place in 

 the Biogr. Index Brit. Botanists, and it may be worth while to 



* I have before expressed my opinion (Journ. Bot. 1894, 375-6), which 

 experience confirms, that Mr. Jackson should have given the names as spelt by 

 their authors, and should not have attempted to make them conform to more 

 accurate usage. 



t It originally appeared in two parts, which explains the two series of 

 numbers on the plates in the Memorias. 



I See Pritzel, no. 3465 ; Colmeiro, Bot. Penins. Hispano-Litsitana, 199. 



