65 
torium Forsk. Cent. vi. p. 162’, has stellate- -pubescent capsules, 
and therefore cannot be Croton tinctorium, Linn., in which the 
capsules are lepidote. 
Forskal’s name Croton argentewm, which had no accompanying 
description, bears the relationship to the plant with which 
Forskal associated it, that Miiller imagined to subsist between 
Croton hastatum, 1 . non Linn., and Ricinoides mala- 
barica surattensis, Garcin. In this case, however, neither Miller 
nor Pax and Hoffman have ct ad that the epithet ‘argenteum ’ 
has priority. 
n 1786 Lamarck, under Croton, dealt in intention with only 
ign: in practice with three, species of Chrozophora. One of these 
was the Tournesol, C. tinctorium, Linn. (Encyc. Meth. iii. 
p- 214). In the Lamarck herbarium there is one specimen which 
Lamarck has written up:—‘ un rameau du Croton tinctorium. 
Tournesol d. Vahl.’ There is nothing to show whether this 
specimen had been given by Vahl to Lamarck before or after the 
publication of the third volume of the Encyclopedia. Mfrs 
the ‘ Tournesol ’ itself has been treated by Lamarck as it w 
Linnaeus, the treatment of 1753 has been departed from by ‘the 
addition of two varieties. The inclusion of these was the 
result of Burmann’s action in 1768. Lamarck appreciated, what 
Burmann failed to observe, that Croton tinctorium, Burm. f. non 
Linn., and C. hastatum, Burm. f. non Linn., are forms of the 
same species. But Lamarck, like Burmann, failed to observe 
that this species with stellate-pubescent capsules cannot be C. 
. tinctortum, Linn., in which the capsules are eee tc Lamarek 
regarded C. hastatum, Burm. f. non Linn., . tinctorium’ 8,’ 
citing Burm. Fl. Ind. t. 68, fig. 1 in the ‘text, and ye up a 
specimen in his herbarium, ven eae eres tly with that 
figure, as ‘ Croton hastatum Burm. Fl. Ind. t. 63, £.1. Croton 
tinctorium var. 3 enc.’ The locality and the collector of this 
specimen are not mentioned. Under ‘C. tinctorium y’ Lamarck 
in his text has cited Burm. Fl. Ind. t. 62, fig. 1, while in his 
herbarium there are four specimens of the same species, which 
hardly differ from the representative of his var. (3. These speci- 
mens Lamarck hire written up as ‘Croton tinctorium de Mr. 
Sonnerat. var. y enc.’ 
The other specins of Chrozophora described by Lamarck is 
vets senegalense (Encyc. Meth. iii. p. a: based by citation 
specimen referred to as ‘No. 165 A. dath.’ There is no 
exain pis of C. senegalense in the Lamarck gir barium. I[ 
Jussieu herbarium, however, we find evidence that while faceke 
phora to which he gave the field-numbers ‘ e am 60,’ 
Herb. de Galam 61,’ and ‘No. 145.’ The general facies of all 
three is the same, but whereas ‘Herb. de Gala t 
undersurface of the leaves softly woolly with long-stalked stellate 
hairs, the other two specimens, ‘ No. 145’ and ‘ Herb. de Galam 
61,’ agree with each other, and differ from ‘ Herb. de Galam 60’ 
in having the leaves adpressed-hoary beneath with sessile ats 
hairs. Of these three. assis it is to ‘Herb. de 
B 
? 
