357 



attempted to identify the species nor alluded to the fact that 

 Blunie had already done so in 1847.* 



In 1861 the name D. sativa was applied by Bentham (Flor. 

 Hong Kong. p. 3G8) to that one of the two species included by 

 Linnaeus under 1). bulbifera which has capsules longer than broad 

 and has seeds winged only at the top. In deliberately adopting 

 this view Bentliani does not appear to have been influenced by 

 the circumstance that this usage had already been adopted by 

 Thunberg in 1784, or to have considered the possibility that it 

 was perhaps but a continuation of that followed by Blume in 1827, 

 Hasskarl in 1844, and Miquel in 1859 and I860. Apparent- 

 ly Thunberg identified this species with D. sativa because 

 he found it cultivated in Japan as a crop. Bentham on 

 the other hand did so because he regarded the plate 

 by Ehret, published in 1737 (Hart. Cliff, t. 28) to be 

 the basis of D. sativa, Linn., and because he considered this plate, 

 which shows capsules that are longer than broad, a passable 

 representation of the species with which he was dealing. lie 

 was, he has informed us, further actuated by a belief that the 

 Linnean names D. sativa and D. bulbifera had been transposed 

 by nearly all modern botanists. t 



In 1865 the name D. sativa was employed by Miquel (Prod. 

 Flor. Jap. p. 323) to designate a Japanese species which he 

 believed to be the plant named D. sativa by Thunberg in 1784. 

 The sheets written up by Miquel show that some of the specimens 

 so named are actually referable to Thunberg's species, which is 

 D. bulbifera, Linn. [1]. But the bulk of the material belongs to 

 another species unknown to Thunberg. In 1879 Franchet & 

 Savatier (Enum. PI. Jap. vol. ii. p. 47) followed Miquel in this 

 use of the name for a combination of two species. It was not 

 until 1889 that the conf usion created by Miquel and continued by 

 Franchet was remedied; the species which these authors had in 

 view was then adequatelv differentiated and characterised bv 

 Makino as D. tokoro (Tokyo Bot. Mag. vol. iii. p. 112 and III. 

 Flor. Jap. t. 24). 



In 1887 Trimen, in his concordance to the Cevlon herbarium of 

 Hermann and the Flora Zeylanica of Linnaeus, had to point out 

 (Jovrn. TAnn. Soc. Bot. vol. xxiv. p. 151) that the plant collected 

 by Hermann which is the authority for the citation by Linnaeus 

 (Flor. Zeyl. n. 358) is Tinospora cordifolia, Miers. Trimen has 



* Before leaving the subject of D. sativa. Kunth, it may be noted that 

 while Kuntii has pointed out the existence of D. sativa, Bowdich (Exeurs. 

 Mad. p. 115) which is a Tamus, and of D. sativa, Sieber (Cat. PI. Aegypt.) 

 which is an Anredera, he has not alluded to D. sativa, Thunb. (1784) from 

 Japan, or I). sativa. Bunge (1831) from China, or T). sativa, Herb. Madr. ex 

 \Vall. (1832) from Travancore, all of which are species of Dioscorea. 



t A sequel to this belief of Bentham has been another formed by Hooker, 

 that D. bidbifera, Linn., is unrecognisable (Flor. Brit. Ind. vol. vi. p. 296). 

 The expression of these beliefs has given rise to a controversy which can be 

 best examined when the incidence of the name D. bulbifera, as employed by 

 Linnaeus and subsequent writers, is being discussed. The necessarj 



amination the writers hope to make in another note. Since 1861 the 

 usage advocated by Bentham was repeated bv himself in 1873 (Flor. Austral. 

 vol. vi. p. 461) ; by Hooker in 1892 (Flor. Brit. Ind. vol. vi. p. 295), by Uline 

 in 1897\Engl Pflanzenf. Nachtr. II.-1V. p. 84). and again by Hooker in 1898 

 (Trimen Handb. Flor. Ceyl. pars iv. p. 461). 



