355 



Sumatra (Flor. Ind.-Bat. Sup /A. p. 270) points, however, rather 

 to the Javan species described by Blurne than to the Malabar 

 one figured by Eheede as the species intended, and this is strongly 

 confirmed by the use of the name D. sativa by Miquel in I860 

 (Prol. Flor. Jap. p. 32) because we know that in this case 

 Miquel intended, though he failed in his purpose, to connote the 

 cultivated state of D. bvlbifcra, Linn. [1], for which Thunberg 

 in 1784 had used the name D. sativa, Linn. In 1864, however, 

 Thwaites (Enum. PL ZeyL p. 326) interpreted Kunth' s action 

 as an attempt to confine the name 7). sativa, Linn., to the plant 

 figured by Rheede as Mu-kelengu. All the specimens from 

 cultivated plants grown in Ceylon distributed by Thwaites as 

 D. sativa, Linn., represent the plant which forms the subject of 

 Rheede's plate. Perhaps the most interesting feature in Kunth's 

 account of D. sativa, Linn., was his attempt, the first of its kind, 

 to identify the various elements which he excluded from the 

 species. For I). sativa, Linn. [1], he adopted the name D. tlif- 

 fortiana, Lamk (Enum. vol. v. p. 337) and like Lamarck based 

 this on the description by Linnaeus and the figure by Ehret of a 

 plant or plants from the Hartekamp garden (Ilort. Cliff, p. 459. 

 t. 28). But he accepted under />. Cliff ortiana the statement 

 of Poiret that Lamarck's figure (111. t. 818) is meant to represent 

 the species that the plate by Ehret is supposed to represent. He 

 has been led further into the inconsistency of citing this plate 

 both under D. sativa, Kunth, which it does in part represent, and 

 under D. Cliffortiana which it does not represent even in part. 

 It is true that Kunth points out that the portion of the plate 

 borrowed by Lamarck from Gaertner shows a plant with fruits 

 unlike those shown in Ehret 's figure. But he does not point out 

 that the fruit borrowed from Gaertner belongs to a species distinct 

 from that represented by the flowering twig borrowed from 

 Hheede, and as regards the latter, which represents the Mu- 

 kelengu of ^Malabar, Kunth says, under 1). Cliffortiana, that it 

 is a figure of a North American species. 



Equal inconsistency is shown in the treatment of D. sativa [4], 

 the West Indian plant taken up by Linnaeus from Plumier. 

 Burmann's figure (PL Amer. Plum. t. 117. fig. 1) he regarded 

 as the authority for the species which he nevertheless identified 

 with D. altissima, Lamk, a name the basis of which is the com- 

 panion figure on the same plate. But in another passage {Enum. 

 vol. v. p. 356) lie has cited fig. 1 under T). piperifolia, AVilld. vix 

 Humb. & Bonpl., and in yet another (Enum. vol. v. p. 412) has 

 rited fig. 2, accurately, under T). altissima, Lamk. By inad- 

 vertence Kunth says that Gaertner had quoted fig. 2 where in 

 reality he has referred to fiff. 1; at the same time he omits to 



^5 ...... 



state that Gaertner's own figure (Frucf. t. IT. fig. 4) represents 

 Plunder's plant. 



Kunth has omitted to identify D. sativa, Linn. [5], the West 

 Indian plant taken up by Linnaeus from Sloane, and although he 

 has alluded to the discrepant views of Presl and Grisebach re- 

 garding the Ambovna plant which is D. sativa, Linn. [6], he has 

 overlooked the identification of this plant by Blume in 1847 

 and has expressed no opinion of his own as to what it really i^. 



In 1864 these identifications by Kunth were revised by Grise- 



c2 



