3T2 



this specimen are singularly unlike the leaves and the stem of 

 Ehret's figure and therefore equally unlike those of any specimen 

 of any of the forms of D. vMlosa, Linn. The leaves and stem 

 are, however, exactly those of V. chondrocarpa, Griseh. (Flor. 

 Bras. vol. iii. p. 34) and the specimen might without hesitation 

 be identified as D. chondrocarpa but for the circumstance that 

 none of the leaves present exhibit the stipulary prickles so 

 characteristic of that species. This objection is not wholly in- 

 superable. The specimen, obviously derived from a plant grown 

 under stove conditions, is taken from high up on a branch, and 

 even in wild specimens these prickles towards the ends of the 

 branches tend to become small and at times are absent. More- 

 over, as we have seen, the artist who added the fruiting spike to 

 Ehret's plate has been at pains to add also a stipulary prickle. 

 This he was not likely to have done had not the presence of 

 such prickles on some part of the plant whence this specimen was 

 derived arrested his attention. 



The description of T). chondrocarpa provided by Grisebach in 

 1842 is not the earliest account of this species at our disposal. 

 It is the plant figured by Burmann in TT55 (PL Airier. Plum. 

 vol. i. p. 73. t. 83) as China Michnacariensis, sive Smilax aspera 

 minor, Boyaux du Diable — in Plunder's MSS. named China 

 Michuanejisis, seu phaeo Redd* ; and referred by Burmann (I.e.) 

 to Smilax caule aculeato, folds inemnibus ovatis retuso-mucrona- 

 tis, i.e. to Smilax Sarsaparilla 3 Linn. (Sp. PL ed. 1. p. 1029). 



Being a Dioscorea and not a Smilax it is not S. Sarsaparilla, 

 Linn., though we now know from Burchell that it is the plant 

 whose rhizomes yield the genuine ' Salsaparillia ' of commerce. 

 TVilidenow in 180G rectified the error into which Burmann had 

 fallen as to the specific identity of this plant, but unfortunately 

 without ob>erving that it is not a Smilax but a Dioscorea; it 

 /appears in his work as Smilax acuminata (Sp. PL ed. Willd. 

 vol. iv. p. 779). The fact that this plant is the source of the true 

 Sarsnparilla affords a possible explanation of its presence in the 

 collection of so ardent a grower of rare and interesting species 

 as the owner of the famous garden at ITartekamp. 



A native of Brazil, the reputation of the drug it yields, and the 



* As the description supplied by Burmann is very condensed, and as he 

 has inadvertently referred the plant not only to a species but to a genus to 

 which it does not belong, we take this opportunity to print Plumier's 

 original description in fall : 



China michuaeanensis seu phaeo Bechi Lib. v. cap. Iv. 



Huius etiara nee flores nee fructus potui observare curiose licet 

 conquisitos. Ejus radix dura est et compacta radicum arundinacearum 

 instar intus rubens adstringens et amariuscula deforis vero e russo 

 nigricans tuberculis nodosa ac innnmeris fibris longis et duris stipata, 



« ex ea sarmenta quaedam proveniunt dirnidium digitum fere crassa 

 solida seu dura virentia aculeis rubor urn nostratum instar armato 

 altissime tandem super vicinas arbores cor.scendentia ac raraos 

 quosdarn emittentia foliaque quaedam cordata, acuraine longo donata, 

 quatuor poltices circiter ampla glabra superius sature inferius vero 

 diluto virentia eostulisque .septem plantagininis [plantaginis] in 

 morem sustentata. 



riuribus in locis reperitur haec planta apud insulam martinicensem ubi 



valgus earn boyaux du Diable appellant eo quod intestineorum [sic] 

 funicolum instar sarmenta ejus frangi contumacissima existant. 

 Smilacis forte est species. 



