359 



- 





* 



D. sativa, Maycock (1830) is applied to the unarmed condition 



of D. sativa, Linn. [5] ; 



1). sativa, Bunge (1831) is applied to D. onposita, Thunb. 



(1784); 



D. sativa, Rottler (1832) is applied to /;. bulbifera, Linn. 



[2] (1753) afterwards described as I). Wallichii. Book. f. 



(1892) : 



D. sativa, Dillwyn (1839) is restricted by citation to l>. satna 

 D. sativa, Gnseb. (1842) is applied to the Brazilian />. 7*c»fr/- 



npj/m, Veil. (1827); 



D. sativa, Blanco (1845) is applied to a form of //. sativa [4] : 

 D. sativa, Kunth (1850) is restricted in intention io />. sativa 



[2] [3], though Kunth's citation of Blume involves the 

 probable inclusion of D. bulbifera [1], while D, sativa 

 [1 j is kept apart as a svnonvm both of D. quatemata, 



Walt. (1788) and of D. CUffortiana, Lamk (1789); 



D. sativa, Benth. (1861) is restricted to />. sativa [1] which is 



treated as identical with /). bulbifera, Linn. [1] (1753); 



Z>. sativa, Griseb. (1864) is treated as a synonym of 1). hi tea 

 Meyer (1818) which is now considered to be identical with 



D. heptaneura. Yell. (1827); 

 D. sativa, Thir. (1864) is deliberately confined to J), sativa 



D. sativa, J//7. (I860) is applied mainly to a Japanese plant 



afterwards described as JJ. tokoro, Makino (1889). 

 D. sativa, Hassk. (1867) is restricted by citation to /). sativa 



[4] 



Wli 



en tlie question as to the identity of the six different plants 

 included by Linnaeus under D. sativa in 1753 and 1754 is con- 

 sidered regard must be had to the conclusion of Lamarck in J 789, 

 Grisebach in 1842. Bentham in 1801 and Hooker in 1892 that the 

 figure by Ehret published in 1737 {Hart. Cliff, t. 28) must be 

 accepted as the authority or basis for the name, and to the fact 

 that the only authors who have taken a different view have been 

 possibly Blunie in 1827* and certainly Kunth in 1850. As 

 Kunth has, in intention at least, restricted the use of the name 

 to the plant especially cited by Blume, which is the Malabar 

 Wu-kelengu of Itheede, it is desirable to defer the consideration 



* Rottler, whose tentative use of the name D. sativa in the Madras 



herbarium has been adopted by Wallich, may have held the view that D. 

 sativa should be restricted to a single plant among the six included under 

 the name by Linnaeus ; so, for anything they say, may Thunberg, Bunge 

 and Miquel. As, however, all four authorities have used the name D. saliva 

 for species which lie outside the Linnean aggregate, their views may be 

 neglected here. The case of Blume is on a somewhat different footing, in 

 the first place because he believed himself to be using the name for a single 

 species which is included in the Linnean aggregate, and further because 

 Kunth, by transcribing the definition drawn up by Blume, has indicated 

 fairly clearly that he was guided by Blume's judgment in his selection of 

 the particular Linnean element of JD. sativa to which that name should be 

 restricted. The fact that the plant actually described by Blume cannot 

 possibly be the Linnean element in question, or indeed be any of the six 

 species included in D. sativa by Linnaeus, does not affect the manifest 

 intention of Kunth, which was anticipated by Dillwyn in 18o.9 and to which 

 logical effect was given by Thwaites in 1864 and by Hasskarl in 1867. 



