374 



Lamarck in 1789 had a firmer foundation even than that author 

 imagined, and the name 1). Cliff or liana, Lamk, also disappears. 



Our endeavour to answer the question "What is I), satica, 

 Linn.?" has led us into unexpected bye-paths and has 

 produced some unexpected results. A brief summary of these 

 results may not be without interest. 



Two authors who have used the name — Sieber in 1821 and 

 Bowdich in 1825 — have applied the name to individual species 

 which do not belong to the genus Dioscorea. 



Ei^ht authors — Thunberg in 178-4, Rodschied in 1796, Presl in 

 1827, Bnnge in 1831, "Wallich m 1832, Grisebach in 1842, 

 Bentham in 1861, Miquel in 1865 — have applied the name D. 

 sativa to species other than any of those included under the name 

 by Linnaeus. At least two of these — Grisebach and Bentham — 

 were aware that the Linnean D. sativa, so far as citation is con- 

 cerned, covers several different species. 



Other authors, however, have been alive to this fact. Gaertner 

 in 1788 implied the exclusion of a AVest Indian plant cited by 

 Linnaeus from Sloane ; AVilldenow in 1806 expressly excluded 



another West Indian plant cited by Linnaeus from Plumier; 

 Meyer in 1818 excluded an Amboyna plant cited by Linnaeus 

 from Humph ; Presl in 1827 excluded both the West Indian plant 

 from Plumier and the Amboyna plant from Humph. Maycock 

 in 1830 by citation excluded everything save the unarmed con- 

 dition of the West Indian cultivated Yam taken up by Linnaeus 

 from Sloane; Dillwyn, in 1839, in practice excluded everything 

 except one of Rheede's Malabar Dioscorea^. Kunth in 1850 

 excluded, in intent ion, everything save a Ceylon plant taken 

 up by Linnaeus from Hermann and a Malabar plant taken up 

 from Pheede. Thwaites in 1864 excluded everything save 



Rheede's Malabar plant, and was followed in this by Hasskarl 



in 1867. 



Four authors — Lamarck in 1789, Grisebach in 1842, Bentham 



in 1861, Hooker in 1892 — have expressed the conviction that the 



subject of Ehret's plate Wort. Cliff, t. 28) must be regarded as 



the authority of Linnaeus for the species D. sativa, Linn. (Sp. PL 



ed. 1. p. 1033). It is significant that three of these authors — 



Grisebach, Bentham, Hooker — have used the name for species of 



Dioscorea which Linnaeus never did include in J), sativa, and 



that Lamarck, wlio did confine himself strictly to the subject of 



Ehret's plate, admitted his inability to identify the species there 

 depicted. 



Lamarck in 1789 thought it desirable to suppress the name 

 T). sativa and to use instead the name T). Cliff ortiana. In this 

 Lamarck has been followed only by Poiret in 1823 and by Kunth 

 in 1850. It is again significant that Poiret applied the name 

 D. Cliff ortiana in connection with a plate (Lamk. III. t. 818) on 

 which are shown two species which Lamarck had excluded from 

 D. Cliffortiana and tliat Kunth >till confessed his inability to 

 recognise Ehret's plant. 



Turning now to the components of J), sativa, Linn., as indicated 

 bv the citations ot Linaeus we find that two of these are not 



t ^^ 



members of the sfeiuis Dioscorea: the others do belong to the 



genus. 



