414 NOTES ON HOYA. 



Traill's note upon these names, which it seems hardly necessary to 

 reproduce, makes it clear that Haworth's name was given to the 

 actual plant sent by Wallich. 



Mr. Jackson cites John Miller's name as '' albens Millers, ex 

 Steud. Nom. ed. ii. i. 177 [777]" (1841), but it should stand as 

 above, on Traill's authority, and dates from 1826. 



HoYA AUSTRALIS Br. 



This name, first published by James Traill in Trans. Hort. Soc. 

 vii. 28 (1827), was (as there stated) referred by Brown in Mem. 

 Wern. Soc. i. 27, and subsequently in his Prodrumus, to H. carnosa. 

 In each case, however, Brown expressed his opinion that his carnosa 

 probably included several species ; it appears from his MSS. that 

 he grouped under that name all the specimens he had seen that did 

 not belong to viridijlora (= Dregea volubiiis) — the second species 

 of the genus as originally constituted by him. Subsequently the 

 Australian plant was named by him in Herb. Banks. U. australis, 

 and as his ticket upon the same sheet bears the name H. carnosa, 

 the doubt expressed by Bentham (Fl. Austr. iv. 347) as to the 

 identity of the two plants may be removed. 



The plant does not seem to have been collected by Brown, as 

 stated by Bentham, but only by Banks, at Cape Grafton, Endeavour 

 River, in 1770. It was named and fully described in MS. by 

 Solander, and we have also a sketch by Sydney Parkinson, from 

 which James Miller subsequently prepared a finished drawing 

 which was engraved but not published. 



To the same species (under its synonym H. bicarinata A. Gr.) 

 Seemann (Fl. Vit. 163) correctly referred ^Isc/^'j^/V/s volubiiis oi George 

 Forster's Prodromus (p. 21, excluding the synonymy) from Tanna, 

 on the faith of his sketch (dated "Tanna, August 12th, 1774") and 

 finished drawing. There is a Tanna specimen in the Banksian 

 Herbarium from Captain Cook, collected during the same voyage, 

 to which Seemann makes no reference, though it is obvious that 

 he saw it. 



^ To H. carnosa Brown also (Mem. Wern. Soc. i. 27) referred a 

 plant of Loureiro's which he cites as *' Stapelia Chinensis, Lour. 

 Cochin, i. p. 205, fide specim. ab auctore missi in Herb. Banks." 

 The only specimen of " Stapelia" from Loureiro in Herb. Banks, is 

 named iS. cochinchinensis, so it seemed clear that this was the name 

 Brown had intended to cite. Having arrived at this conclusion, 

 I found I had been anticipated by Traill (/. c. 20), who gives a very 

 careful note, based on an examination by Brown, showing that 

 Loureiro's specimen cannot be identified, save in part, with either of 

 his descriptions, and that both remain obscure. 



HoYA NICOBARICA Br. 



Sir Joseph Hooker (Fl. Brit. Ind. iv. 62) places this among his 

 •' doubtful and excluded species " with the following note : ^^ H. ni- 

 cobarica Br. in Wight Contrib. 36 (note under H. p^ndiila W. & A.) 

 — Nothing is known of this." This statement is the more remark- 

 able because it is distinctly stated in Wight's ContributLns that a 



