354 



I 



described as D. tiliaefolia, Kunth. But the plant of Blanco and 

 Kunth is no more than a variety of the species to which Kheede's 

 Mu-keleuijv (Hort. Malab. vol. viii. t. 51) and the Cumbilium of 

 Kumph (Herb. Aviboyn. vol. v. t. 12G) alike belong, although 

 in 1753 Linnaeus referred the Malabar one to D. sativa (Sp. PL 

 ed. 1. p. 1033) and in the following year placed the Amboyna one 

 in 1). aculeata (Amoen. Acad. vol. iv. p. 131).* D. sativa, Blanco 

 (1845), is thus essentially the species to which in 1827 Blume 

 intended to restrict the name D. sativa, Linn., and to which in 

 1839 Dillwyn succeeded in restricting it. Blanco's plant is 

 therefore a form of I). sativa, Linn. [3]. 



In 1850 Kunth gave attention to D. sativa (Enum. vol. v. 

 p. 340). The species is not formally stated by Kunth to be a 

 doubtful one though his treatment indicates that it was such, 

 because he has not provided a description ; the account employed 

 is taken verbatim from Blume {Enum. PI. Jav. p. 23). The 

 citations show that Kunth excluded from the Linnean aggregate 

 I), sativa, Linn. [1]. [4], [5], [6], retaining only the Ceylon 

 plant (Flor. Zi yh n. 358) which is D. sativa, Linn. [2] and the 

 Mu-lzclengu of Malabar, which is I), sativa, Linn. [31. The 

 transcript from Blume suggests that Kunth accepted Bhime's 

 description as applicable to these two plants but its inadequacy 

 is shown by his citation of 1). sativa, Blanco (Flor. Filip. ed. 2. 

 p. 551) which, while in reality conspecific with Mu-kelengu, so 

 that the citation is justified, is at the same time identical with the 

 plant described by Kunth himself as D. tiliaefolia (Enum. 

 vol. v. p. 401). In quoting the plate prepared by Lamarck to 

 illustrate the genus (111. t. 818), Kunth for the first time pointed 

 out the sources of its two components, but lie did not call atten- 

 tion to the fact that the portion borrowed from Gaertner depicts 

 P. sativa, Linn. [4], which Kunth had excluded from the species 

 as understood by him, or advert to the circumstance that T). 

 sativa, Ait. (Hort. Keir. ed. 2. vol. v. p. 392), which is cited in 



its entirety, really connotes I), sativa, Linn. [4] and has only, 

 by its reference to Mu-kelenffU, a casual connection with the 

 species he was attempting to delimit. Various efforts have been 

 made to follow Kunth. The citations employed by Miquel in 

 185!) (Flor. Ind.-Bat. vol. iii. p. 571) indicate one such attempt, 

 but whether Miquel had in mind the plant to which Kunth 

 endeavoured to restrict the name I), sativa, Linn., or rather 

 had regard to the one to which alone the description given by 

 Blume in 182-7 applies, is not wholly clear. The use of the 

 name D. sativa by Miquel in 1860 for a plant cultivated in 



The name used for the species by Hooker (Flor. Brit. Tnd. vol. vi. p. 291) 

 is D. spinosa, Roxb. The reasons given by Hooker for declining to employ 

 either the name D. sativa or the name D. aculeata are incontrovertible. The 

 difficulty with regard to the name adopted by Hooker is that there is an 

 earlier D. spinosa, Burm. (Hort. Malab. index, p. 5) used by Burmann in 

 1768 for Rheede's Katu-Niiren-Kelengu (Hort. Malab. vol. vii. t. 34), which 

 Linnaeus for some reason did not cite in 1753, This plant is clearly only a 

 form of Nuren-Kelengu (op. cit. vol. vii. t. 35) which was referred by 

 Linnaeus to his D. pentaphylla (Sp. PL ed. 1, p. 1032). It seems clear that 

 in proposing the name D. spinosa for a Dioscorea with simple leaves Rox- 

 burgh had overlooked or had failed to become acquainted with the existence 

 of the name D. spinosa, Burm. (1768). 



