NOTES ON NAUCLEE^. 837 



He has paid much attention to the early history, and the varied 

 information hrought together under the first of the ahove headings 

 is full of interest. 



One or two points, however, require correction or amplification. 

 For instance, he says: " There is a specimen o^ Mitrai/i/nu parcifulia 

 named [NaiicJea oriental is] in the Banksian Herbarium, and referred 

 to by Gaertner in 1788, De Fructihus, i. p. 151. Mr. Daydon Jackson 

 is of opinion that the name is probably not Linnteus's. The only 

 other specimen in the Herbarium labelled Nauclea is one of Adina 

 tjlobijiora ; and Mr. Jackson thinks the writing in this case is un- 

 doubtedly that of Linnaeus." 



There is certainly some mistake here, and it is not easy to see 

 how it arose. No one is better acquainted with the handwriting of 

 Linnaeus than Mr. Jackson ; and it is almost impossible to sup- 

 pose that he could have said that the name Nauclea urientalis in the 

 sheet of Adina referred to was written by Linnneus. On both the 

 sheets mentioned by Mr. Haviland the name is in Solander's hand, as 

 may be seen by comparison with the description in Solander's MS. 

 (which, by the way, refers to Natidea Forsteri, thus affording a 

 further illustration of the confused application of the name orientalis, 

 to which Mr. Haviland refers). 



It is, I think, unfortunate that Mr. Haviland did not consult 

 some one at the Museum about the specimens there, as in some 

 cases we could have given him useful information. For instance, a 

 reference to Plukenet on one of the sheets just referred to would 

 have suggested to one familiar with the Herbarium the desirability 

 of consulting Plukenet's specimens in the Sloane Herbarium. 

 Herein (vol. scii, fol. 19 ; xciii, fol. 9) are to be found specimens 

 of Mitra<jijna 2Xu-cifolia, of which the following description,* much 

 earlier than any cited by Mr. Haviland, is given in Plukenet's 

 Mantissa, p. 4 (1700), and is reprinted in Eay's Historia Plantaruin, 

 iii. Deudrol. p. 129 (1706):— 



" AcRocHORDODENDRos S. Arbor Indica praegrandis.foliis integris, 

 Platani fructu verrucoso minore, sive Fragi formi duro, cujus singuli 

 bati sen tuberculi sunt capsula; semiuales. Melius forsan. Arbor 

 Indica prffigrandis, foliis integris fructu rotundo parvo Fragiformi 

 h tuberculis capsularibus composito. Nellacarumbac il/rt^((^(n"o/7</«." 

 On the tickets attached to this specimen Plukenet has added "each 

 wart is bico^psular," and the name "Rutrasha candamba." 



Our specimens of Mitrai/ijna paivifolia illustrate another point in 

 which Mr. Haviland's monograph might have been made more com- 

 plete — /. e. by the systematic inclusion of the Museum specimens. 

 Koenig's Coromandel specimens, from which Gaertner's description 

 was taken, should certainly have been mentioned, as well as those 

 from Roxburgh and A. P. Hove, and, among more recent gatherings, 

 those of Beddome ; Wallich's numbers, too, are sometimes omitted. 

 It is unnecessary to cite all the instances of omission ; but a 

 SarcocephalmcordaUis from Horsfield, Dietrich, Buchanan-Hamilton, 

 and Koeuig; Adina (jlohijlora from Salisbury (type), Robertson, and 



* There is a figure in Phytographia, t. ccclxi, 5 (1705). 

 Journal of Botany. — Yo;.. 35. [Sept. 1897.] z 



