173 



Central Nepal, We know tliat in 1830 W 



tliree sDecips ns; ]ii« nn 8l21 i^l9:^K or./! .Qi 



rn 



The 



third species is a scapigerons plant which was descrihed by D, 

 Don in 1825 as Papaver simpUcifoliurn, and ngain by G- Don in 

 1831 as Stylo plioTuvi simplicifoliurn , and was transferred by 

 Walpers ia 1842 to Mecoaopsls as M. simplicifolia. Waliich 

 in 1830 had already placed it in its true genus, but had cited it 

 under a different specific name, proposed but not published by 

 himself in 1821. This species, not having a tall branching stem, 

 only interests us in our present enquiry owing to the fact that 

 the sheet of n. 8125 in the Wallichian type herbarium bears an 

 original label with the legend '' Polyctaetia scapigera, Wall. 

 Gossain Than Augusto, 1821/' 



The species issued by Waliich in 1830 as n- 8123b is accom- 

 panied by a similar label written up by AYallich with the legend 

 '* Polychaetiii paniculata, Wall. Argemone et Papav, prox. 

 Goss. Than Augusto, 1821/' The species thus indicated is the 

 one with tall branching stems and yellow flowers described by 

 D. Don in 1825 as Papaver paniciilatum. On the other hand, 

 the species issued by Waliich in 1830 as n. 8121 under the Cata- 

 logue entry ^^Meconopsis e Gossain Than'' has no original label 

 corresponding to those which accompany n. 8123b and n. 8125. 

 Like n. 8123b, n. 8121 is a species with tall branching' stems. 



The absence of a label dating from 1821 in the case of n. 8121 

 suggests that when the specimens were first brought to him, 

 Waliich may have Ibolced upon the two Nepalese mountain 

 poppies with tall branching stems as forms of one species. There 

 is a circumstance which, so far as it goes, is in keeping with this 

 suggestion. Some time prior to 1824, Waliich sent from Calcutta 

 to I)o Candolle in Geneva one specimen of a Nepalese MeconopsU 

 with a tall branching stem, and at the same time sent to Lam- 

 bert in London another specimen of a ISTepalese Mecoiwpsis 

 with a tall branching stem. The specimen sent to Geneva was 

 made the basis of M. napaulends, DC, in 1824; that sent to 

 London became the basis of Papaver panicuhUim, D. Don, in 

 1825; moreover, Don took it for granted, at the time, that the two 

 specimens in Geneva and in London represented the same plant. 

 That De Candolle had received from Waliich a note not unlike the 

 leo-end on the original label in Wallich's own herbarium is at least 

 possible; the remark in the Prodromus '' habitus fere Glaucii aut 

 Aro^emones. An genus? an sectio propria'' is not incompatible 

 with this suggestion. We know, however, that the specimen 

 which is the basis of M. napnuleiish, DC, and of which through 

 the courtesy of Mr. C. de Candolle we are able to publish a 

 photograph, is part of the gathering issued by Waliich as his n. 

 8121, °a photograph of which, as represented in Wallich's own 

 herbarium, is also given here. We know, too, that the plant 



ma 



part of the gathering which Waliich named Polychaetia 

 paniculata in 1821, and issued as his n. 8123b in 1830. An 

 examination of the photograph of the specimen of this gathering 

 in the Wallichian herbarium will enable the difference between 

 the plants described by De Candolle and Don respectively to be 



