342 



that of Boerliaave was an American species grown in 

 the open in the Leiden garden. in addition to the 

 foregoing, Linnaeus included in this group of forms a 

 plant growing in the garden of Mr. G. Clifford at Harte- 

 kamp which he had kept under observation during two 

 successive seasons, but which had not flowered when the descrip- 

 tion given in the Hortus Cliff ortianus was written. Facing the 

 text (Hort. Cliff, p. 459) is a figure drawn by Ehret (Hort. Cliff. 

 t. 28) to which Linnaeus makes no reference. This figure 

 purports to be a portrait of the plant described by Linnaeus as 

 Dioscorea foliis cordatis altemis, cdnle laevi; as, however, a 

 prickle is shown at the base of one petiole and a fruiting raceme 

 is depicted as arising from the axil of that particular leaf, we 

 know that some modification must have taken place in the original 

 drawing of the plant which, we learn from Linnaeus himself, had 

 an unarmed stem and had failed to produce flowers. 



In 1740 Royen (Flor. Leyd. Prodr. p. 52T) repeated the 

 synonymy of the Hortus Cliff or tianus, citing the text but not 

 the figure of 1737; the reference to the Hortus Malaharicus is 

 also omitted by Royen, though Plukenet's notice of the Malabar 

 plant is given. 



In 1747 Linnaeus again dealt with Dioscorea foliis cordatis 

 alternis, caule laevi (Flor. Zeyl. p. 170. n. 358) repeating the 

 references of 1737, but omitting the expression of doubt used by 

 himself in the Hortus Cliff ortianus and by Royen in his 

 Prodromus* regarding the identity of RJdzophora americana, 

 Boerh., and adding to his earlier citations that of Rossakinda 

 from Burmann (Thes. Zeyl. p. 207). This Rossakinda is itself, as 

 we learn from Burmann, whose work was published in 1737, taken 

 up from Hermann (51 vs, Zeyl. p. 27) ; the specimen of Rosalinda, 

 the name of which appeared in 1717, is still in Hermann's 

 herbarium at the British Museum and is the one written up, by 

 Linnaeus himself, for the Flora Zeylanica (Flor. Zeyl.'u. 358). 



Like Royen in 1740, Linnaeus in 1747 cites his own text 



of 1737 (Hort. Cliff, p. 459) but does not refer 10 Ehret's figure 





(Hort. Cliff, t, 28). In 1753 (Sp. PL ed. 1. p. 1033), when the 



trivial name ' sativa ' was first proposed, Linnaeus at last acknow- 

 ledged Ehret's plate as a figure of D. sativa, citing under the 

 diagnosis the references Hort. Cliff. r>. 459. t. 28; Flor. Zeyl- 

 n. 358; and Roy. Flor. Leyd. Prodr. p. 527. The further 

 references are now, however, reduced to three, those from 

 Plumier, Sloane and Rheede, which arc given in the order named; 



the references to Plukenet, Boerhaare and Burmann are omitted. 

 In 1754 (Awoen. Acad. vol. iv. p. 133) Linnaeus accepted re- 

 sponsibility for the reference to /). sativa of Olus sanguinis, 

 Rumph (Herb. Amhoyn. vol. v. p. 482. t. 180), and in 1757 



•T. Burmann published the figure of Plunder's Dioscorea *ca-nden$ $ 

 foliis tamni, fructn vaeemoso (PI. Awcr. Plum. p. 107. t. 117. 



* It is possible, however, that the omission of the ? in this instance may 

 be an inadvertence; the text of n. 358 in the Flora Zeylcnica contains 

 several typographical errors which had escaped the notice of Linnaeus, e.g. 

 PluJc. Aim. 32 in place of 321 ; tammi instead of tarnni ; lugd. i. p. 207 for 

 ii. p. 267; Herm. zeyl. where Burm. zeyl. is intended. This being so, the ? 

 may have been overlooked, or may have been ' dropped ' by the printer. 



