261 
‘Conghas’ of Hermann and quotes Herm. Hort. Lugd.-Bat. 536, 
Herm. Mus. 69, Burm. Thes. 209 and Linn. FI. Zeyl. n. 608. 
Now what are the facts? In Flora Zeylanica, p. 231, Linnaeus 
includes ‘‘ Conghas’’’ among his ‘‘ Barbarae. Annihilatae,’’ and 
writes ‘‘ Conghas Herm. Zeyl. 69. Saponaria arbor zeylanica 
trifolia, semine lupini. Herm. mus. 69, prodr. 373, Burm. Zeyl. 
209,’’ etc. Subsequently, in Species Plantarum, ed. i. 367, 
against Sapindus trifoliata, he writes, ‘‘ Sapindus foliis ternatis,”’ 
and quotes Rheede’s Hortus Malabaricus, iv. p. 43, t. 1 only, 
not at all referring to Flora Zeylanica. So far then there is 
nothing to show that he meant the same plant in the two cases. 
Linnaeus quotes no number of Hermann’s Herbarium as he does 
in other cases where he describes and names a plant in that Her- 
barium. Nor is there a specimen of ‘‘ Conghas’’ in Hermann’s 
Herbarium, or one of Saponaria . . . trifolia in Linnaeus’. 
rmann himself, as Dr. Rendle kindly pointed out to me, in- 
cluded ‘‘Conghas’’? among his species not proper 
and all he says about it is: ‘‘ Saponaria arbor Zeylanica trifolia 
semine lupint. Conghas Zeylanens. Saponaria Sphaerulae arbor 
d. Pideins Saponariae non edules. C.B.P.”’ This as far 
as it goes applies as well to Sapindus as to Schleichera, or even 
better. 
In the case of Burmann’s ‘‘ Conghas’”’ the evidence available is 
less ambiguous. This is what Burmann (Thes. Zeyl. 209) says :— 
‘* Saponarta arbor, Zeylanica, trifolia, semine Lupini. Par. Bat. 
Pr. pag. 373. Mus. Zeyl. pag. 69. Saponaria arbor, trifoliata, 
Rheede’s is good, and considered in conjunction with his deserip- 
tion there is Se debe that it represents Vahl’s Sapindus laurifolta. 
The ‘‘Conghas’’ of Hermann is therefore, presumably, and 
that of Burmann, certainly, a Sapindus, and both are probably 
correspond to Sapindus trifolatus, Linn., or the 
identical —_ ies olan 
us Laurijo . . 
Cac ai ee unsuitability of the name “ trifoliatus,”’ this 
