353 



t. 28); he believed that in D. heptaneura, Veil., he had at 

 last found the missing species. But he did not accept the name 

 J). Cliffortiana proposed by Lamarck in substitution for the 

 original name D. sativa; he may have been influenced as regards 

 this by his acceptance as correct of the erroneous statement made 

 by Poiret that the plate showing two distinct species published 

 by Lamarck [111, t. 818) to illustrate the genus Dioscorca was 

 f intended to be a portrait of the plant raised in 1737 in Clifford's 



garden at Hartekamp. There are other indications of haste in 

 Grisebach's account of D. sativa. He states that in 1827 Presl 

 had pointed out that an East Indian specimen named D. sativa 

 in Willdenow's herbarium differs from the plant at that time, 

 and still in Grisebach's day, grown in European gardens under 

 the name D. sativa. There is no such statement in the passage 

 by Presl to which Grisebach refers and the misquoted statement 

 we have failed to trace. Grisebach indicates his belief that the 

 specimen in question is D. deltoidea, Wall., which, as we learn 

 from Sweet, had been introduced to European collections from 

 ' Xepal in 1816.* If this identification be correct, the specimen 

 cannot at the same time be Olus sanguinis, Humph., t as Grise- 

 bach states. The error into which Grisebach had been led as to 

 the identity of the Brazilian species was corrected by Kunth in 

 1850, when he described it once more as 1). heptaneura, Veil. 

 (Enum. vol. v. p. 326). In 1864 Grisebach accepted Kunth's 

 view (Flor. Brit. West Incl. p. 588) and now intimated that the 

 Brazilian J), sativa. Griseb. non Linn. (1842), was identical with 

 T). lutea, Meyer (1818) and thus, though he does not say this, 

 with D. sativa, Rodsch. non Linn. (1796). This may be the case, 

 because Grisebach indicates that he had examined an aut Identic 

 example of Meyer's species, whereas Kunth remarks (Enum. 

 vol. v. p. 413) that the relationship of D. lutea remained doubtful 

 to him. The point, however, still remains obscure owing to the 

 fact that, so recently as 1891. I), heptaneura. Veil. (1827). re- 

 duced by Grisebach in 1864 to T). Jutea, Meyer, has been retained 

 by Uline as a distinct species {Engl. Ffianzenfam. NacJitr.YL.-TV* 

 p'! 86). 



In 1845 Blanco employed the name D. sativa, Linn. (Flor. 

 Filip. ed. 2. p. 551) for a Dioscorea which in 1837 he had himself 

 described as D. Tuqui (op. cit. ed. 1. p. 800). Merrill in 190") 

 (Rev. Flor. Filip. Blanco, p. 87) was able to prove that D. Tinjui, 

 Blanco, is the plant which in 1850 Kunth (Enum. vol. v. p. 401) 



* The name used by Sweet was D. nppulensis, which cannot be taken up 

 owing: to the absence of a description. It was not used for the first tim°. as 

 Hooker s uggests (Flor. Brit. hid. vol. vi. p. 297). in 1830 I Sweet TJort. Brit. 

 ed. 2, p. 522) but in 1827 (op. cit. ed. 1, p. 413) and must have been well- 

 known in collections even prior to its earliest publication, since we find it 

 applied by Jacquemont in the field to a specimen of 7). deltoidea, Wall., now 

 in the Paris herbarium, which was collected by that distinguished traveller 

 in the North-west Himalaya in 1829. 



f In 1818 .Mover had already shown that this Amboyna plant ought to be 

 excluded from D. sativa, Linn-, but without stating that it is not a Dioscorea. 



In 1827 Presl pointed out the latter circumstance. Presl's statement 

 confirmed in 1847 by Blume, who pointed out (Rumphia, vol. iii. p. 207. 1. 177) 

 that Olus sanguinis is a Cardiopteris. In 1872 this conclusion was confirmed 

 by Baillon (Adanso7iia, vol. x. p. 280) and is evident to anyone who may 



examine the figure. 



C 



