64 
mann may have thought when he passed the proof of his en- 
graving, we know that when the corresponding text was printed 
(Flor. Ind. p. 305 [205]) he regarded Ricinoides malabarica 
surattensis, Garcin, as differents from Croton hastatum, Linn.; 
e named Garcin’s plant ‘C. hastatum B.’ 
During his journeys in 1761-62 Forskal collected specimens 
of four forms of Chrozophora. One of the four was the ‘ Tourne- 
‘sol’ itself; a specimen of this, written up b Forskal as Croton 
tinctorium, is now in the British (Natural History) Museum. 
The indication ‘ex Oriente’ has been added to the sheet by 
another hand. This specimen is not referred to in the ‘ Flora 
Aegypto-Arabica ’ edited by Zoega in 1775. No doubt the speci- 
men may have been collected in Egypt; the ‘ Tournesol ’ has often 
been found near Cairo. But Forskal also made a collection near 
Marseilles, and this British Museum specimen of Chrozophora 
tinctoria, A. Juss., is just as likely to have been gathered in the 
Bouches du Rhéne and omitted from Forskal’s Marseilles list as 
to have been obtained near Cairo and left out of the Egyptian one. 
The references by Zoega to the other three gatherings made 
by Forskal are not quite satisfactory. Yet as two of them have 
become the basis of still valid species of Chrozophora, it is necs- 
sary to examine them all with care. Two of the three are enu- 
. Ixxv.), as ‘490. Croton tinctorium’ and ‘491. Croton argen- 
teum’ respectively; the third is in the Arabian portion (l.c 
i “563. C 
species are as imperfect as that suggested for the Arabian one. 
The specimen of ‘491. Croton argenteum,’ duly written up im 
the Copenhagen herbarium, bears little resemblance to the true 
Croton argenteum, Linn., which is the South American plant 
now known as Julocroton argenteus, Didr. 
Nor is the treatment of ‘ 490. Croton tinctorium ’ much better. 
In the descriptive section of the ‘ Flora’ (Cent. vi. p. 162) caution 
as been enjoined; there the species is described as ‘ Croton 
tinctorium? * The type specimen, which was collected at Gizeh 
and is duly written up in the Copenhagen herbarium as ‘C. tinc- 
