174 



9 



readilj appreciated, and explain how it came about tliat even if, 

 in 1821, Wallich did suppose the two to be conspecific, he was 

 induced, in 1830, to treat them as distinct. 



w allien possessed more 



Meconon,<;i<< nbtairipd hx 



labels in his herbarium convey. We learn from D. Don* that 

 ■\Vallich supplied, with the specimens sent to Lambert, the 



7 



species. In the case of M 



til 



D. Don in 1825 as yellow, and we know that this statement is 

 correct. Yet in 1831 G. Don, when dealing with the same 

 speciest— we know that G. Don had his brother's specimens and 

 no others m mind, because he speaks of the capsules as beset with 

 tmhricate bristles — described the flowers as either crimson or 

 yellow, a statement which, as we have already seen, is contrary 

 to our experience in anjr species of Meconopsis. Unless the 

 statement were based on imagination— and this we have no right 

 to assume— G. Don must have learned from some source other 

 than his brother's work that there is in Nepal a Meconopsis with 

 tall branching stems and red petals. The only possible source 

 of such a statement was Wallich, who, at the time that 

 Don s Dictionary appeared, was engaged in London in the dis- 

 tribution of the East India Company's collections. If the 

 information as to there being a red-flowered Meconopsis in 

 Nepal were correct, the statement could not apply to the tall 

 species with branched stems, yellow petals, and adpressed-set<v^e 

 capsules, described by D. Don as Papaver paniculntum, and 

 could only refer to the other tall species with branched stems and 

 patently bristly capsules, described by De Candolle as M. 

 napaulensis. 



Having regard, however, to the uncertainty which has once 

 more been created owing to the identification in the P ilanzem eicli 

 of the plant issued by Wallich as n. 8121, wbich is a co-type of 

 M.napanUnsn.J^G., with the yellow-flowered species described 

 tov Hooker and Ihomson as M. rohusfa, it seems advisable to await 

 the receipt of further specimens of De Candolle's plant from its 

 locus clas.ncus m Central Nepal, and to obtain direct testimony 

 as to the colour of its petals before definitely identifying it either 

 with the yellow-flowered M. rohustn, Hook. f. & Thoms., or with 

 the red and blue-flowered M. Wallichii, Hook. 



nsSi^^^""*"**?'*? napaulensis, DC. Prodr. vol. i. p. 121 



Hook 



Jl9w''J n Q.o^^ •t.'^';^ '\^' 1^^ ^-^^^^ ^* ^^^o^^l Wall. Cnt. 

 8121 tnntum (1872); Ferl.le, I.e., p. 2G9, partim ot quoad Wall. 



Cat 8121 tnntum (1909). Stvlonhorvn, nevalense, Sprene. 

 Syst.,_vol. IV. cur. post p 203 (1827); Stoud. Nomencl., ed. 2, 

 vol. 11. p. 650, partim (1841). S. vanicidatuw, G. Do^. Gen! 



* Prodtomns Klorae Nepalensia. p. 197. 



r General System of Gardening, vol. i. p. 135. 



