367 





< 





r 



(Flor. Ind. ed. Carey, vol. iii. p. 800 \aculeata\* ; p. 801 [fas- 

 ciculata]). The citations under the diagnosis of D. spinosa are 

 " Cunibilium. Rumph. Amb. v. p. 357. t. 126. One of his 

 varieties thereof is no doubt this very plant; but Katta Kelengu, 

 „ liheed. Mai. vii. t. 37. is too imperfect a figure to be quoted. " 



This sentence gives the clue to Roxburgh's change of name. 

 When he originally considered the question he only knew the 

 f cultivated Susni Yam. This he identified with the figure of 



Combilium supplied by Rumphius. Later, somewhere about 1804 

 (Hort. Beng.), he came to know the Mou Yam. At first he left 

 Susni as D. acideata and used the name D. spinosa for Mou, On 

 reconsideration, this view became modified. lie preferred to 

 identify as T). acideata one of the varieties of Combilium 

 described by Rumph rather than that which is the subject of 

 Rumples plate. 



In certain regions, however, the Mou as well as the Susni is the 

 subject of cultivation. Lamarck's reference to its presence in 

 Reunion, with the not very appropriate name of ' Mozambique 

 Yam/ points to it as cultivated there in 1789. Specimens 

 obtained by Rottler and Koenig in Malabar and Coromandel 

 indicate the same thing in Southern India. We know from 

 Thwaites that it is a cultivated plant in Ceylon. Specimens in 

 the Petrograd herbarium prove its introduction and cultivation 

 in the Loo-choo Archipelago. The same thing is true of Northern 

 India. 



Hamilton (then Buchanan), the friend and contemporary of 



Roxburgh, when engaged in his great economic survey of Bengal 

 between 1807 and 1813, gave close attention to this species and 

 came to conclusions that differ a little from those of Roxburgh. 

 His specimens show that he regarded the Susni Yam, from it- 

 likeness to the figure which Linnaeus cited from Rumph under 

 the name D. aculeata, Linn. (1754, not 1753) as that to which 

 the Linnean name ought perhaps to be restricted; he inclined in 

 fact to what we know, from his manuscript illustration, was 

 Roxburgh's original view. The cultivated form of the Mou Yam, 



| however, is that which Hamilton preferred to identify with the 



Combilium to which the main description of Rumph refers; 

 his name for this is accordingly L\ Combilium, Ham. The un- 



I cultivated Mou, which Roxburgh originally had figaired as D. 



\ spinosa, Hamilton named D. cchinata, a sufficient indication that 



the name spinosa had not been used by Roxburgh in the particular 

 copy of the manuscript Flora Indica which we know to have been 



in Hamilton's possession. 



There are indications that information had readied India of a 

 desire on the part of certain European botanists to learn pre- 

 cisely what the D. acvlrata or Mou-aloo of the Calcutta garden 



Catalogue issued in 1814 might be, and to satisfy this desire 

 specimens were secured from one of Roxburgh's actual plants. 

 The libel which accompanies one such specimen in the Natural 



? Kunth, we have seen, cites this as D. acideata, Roxb., and a reference to 



the passage shows that the quotation is accurate. But the context suggests 



* that Roxburgh regarded the name as one already in use and a reference to 



the Hortus Bengalensis shows that Roxburgh did not accept responsibility 

 for the name. 



