370 



Western Malaya. In Malaya east of the "Wallace-line and in 

 the Philippines the variety described by Kuntli in 1850 as Z>. 

 tiliae folia is abundant as a wild plant; though conspecific with 

 the Mou-alu or Mu-kelengu it does not come within the discussion 

 for which the Indian plants call in connection with the incidence 

 of the name D. sativa. 



The earliest name for the species as a whole is I), aculeata, Jjiim., 

 using that name as it was used by Linnaeus in 1754 (Amoeu.Acad. 

 vol. iv. p. 131), and this is the name that has come into general 

 use. The verdict of Hooker, that this name cannot be used 

 because this is not the plant to which Linnaeus applied the name 

 D. aculeata in 1753 (Sp. PL ed. 1. p. 1033) is, however, unim- 

 peachable. So long as the position of D. aculeata, Linn. (1753) r 

 the authority for which is the Kattu-Kelengu of Rheede (Hort. 

 Malab. vol. vii. p. 71. t. 37), remained doubtful, the continued 

 misuse of the Linnean name was free from inconvenience. Now, 

 however, that it is clear that the species named D. aculeata by 

 Linnaeus in 1753 is a member of the section Enanti ophyllum and 

 is the one described by Hooker in 1892 as D. Wallichii, Hook. L 

 (Flor. Brit. Ind. vol. vi. p. 295j, it is no longer possible to 

 employ the name D. aculeata for the Mu of Eheede and the 

 Combilium of Rumphius. The oldest name within the genus is 

 that of D. fasciculata, Roxb., a usage adopted by one of us in 

 1903 (Ben (j. PL vol. ii. p. 1066). There is however now no room 

 for doubt that the plant described by Loureiro as Oncus esculentus 

 (Flor. Cochinrhin. vol. i. p. 194) in 1793 is the 11 u Yam. This 

 being so, the dictates governing nomenclature that are now in 

 force demand the use of the new combination D. esculenta.* 



When we come to consider the last of the six elements included 

 by Linnaeus under D. sativa we find ourselves confronted by a 

 more serious difficulty than any with which we have vet had to 

 deal. This element, D. sativa, Linn. [~1], is the plant figured by 

 Ehvet in 1737 (Hort. Cliff, t. 28) which, as Hooker and Bentham 

 and Lamarck and Grisebach have all pointed out, must be 

 accepted as the basis of D. sativa, Linn. Views as to the identity 

 of this plant have been somewhat varied. The extremes have 

 been that of Lamarck who would not venture to suggest what it 

 is unless it were perchance the plant in cultivation in Paris in 

 1789 as />. .sativa, which Lamarck could not distinguish from the 

 species depicted in a figuie published by Plukenet that Linnaeu^ 

 had cited under his D. villoma; and that of Bentham who has 

 expressed himself as satisfied that Ehret's plate is an acceptable- 

 representation of one of the two species included by Linnaetie 

 under his D. hulbifera, to which species, as a consequence of this 

 judgment, the name D. sativa, Linn., has by many recent authors 

 been transferred. 



When regard is had to the circumstance that Ehret was the 

 artist concerned, we are justified in assuming that the picture re- 

 presents with some approach to fidelity the object or objects de- 

 picted. This being: the case it may be said at once that, owing to 

 the disposition of the secondare venation, the leaves in Ehret's 



* One of us has communicated this suggestion to Dr. E. D. Merrill, who 

 has formally adopted the name as D. esculenta, Burkill (Interp. Iitimph^ 

 Herb. Amboyn. p. 147). 



