332 
aquarium of the Montpellier garden, it was probably introduced 
there between 1804 and 1811. This was the time when the 
1 lemon-grass ' was in cultivation at Kew and Cambridge, and proba- 
bly also in other English gardens. These facts, the equivalency oE 
the names ' Lemon-grass ' and * Andropogon citratum,' and the 
description of the odour of the Montpellier plant which exactly 
fats that of 'lemon-grass,' are enough to suggest very strongly 
that De Candolle s Andropogon citratus was actually 'lemon- 
grass He may have had it from England ; but not necessarily 
so; tor about the same time a grass was growing in the Jardin des 
Plantes at Pans under the name of 'Andropogon Nardus, Pers. 
Byn.. pitnodorum, which later writers admit to be the same as 
De Undolle a Andropogon citratus. Desfontaines* (1815) gives 
Mauntiusas the country whence it came. The only Mauritius 
lltll 7 hl ^^ U be tak *n tor Andropogon Nardus is the 'lemon- 
fhf w ^ u eTJ Wel1 have been in cultivation there at 
the beginning of the last century, although it is not actually 
and n t n 8 Wain° ming ^"T ^ 183 ^ Th * S De "' 
naLlv M , S m % e ™ il y h ave had it from the same source, 
cuS'inn T lhm ' + ?° WeVer this m ^ be > the Plant remained in 
tfSnllT ^T Jt 1S menti0 ^d in the Turin catalogue 
tL JardS rlpfpi D f tal °A Q o es of 1821 and 1827 > the catalogue of 
flowered Tnl\ ante l.f 1829 ' etc ' ' but ifc d~8 not seem to have 
h*8& a? R™?*' U T «** ^wer at Berlin and 
identified u Sf?v * "V Wh ° records the flowering at Berlin, 
— 7 ente ^t's figure of 'Andropogon Schoenanthus ] 
^^TSLCX^ 6 * an + d reduced ifc acc - din ^ to 
the Botanic wnleTfZ'^ ^^ wh ° Was then Director of 
•a nl°Z ^1 at j> sla u> also considered that it agreed with 
aware that Venf. f, ndr T 9 ° n Schoenanthus, but, as he was well 
rn^nt bv h!tn a T l Pan : COuld not have oeen'what Linnaeus 
Andrc^s^a^^ De Candol ^'s name, and reduced 
^nd4o g gol;^aZ S?*J ent (non Linn 0, as a synonym to 
Plant, as it srZTn 7 ' however > also gave a description of the 
of his and Vente^'f S ?' 2 nd this at onCe excludes the identity 
only from the fi^? T^ ^ ^ ° f which he evidentl ? kneW 
article in the 'A1W ThlS de8Cription was buried awa ^ in an 
and became so en frTT. Gar . tenzeitun ^' of 1835 » PP- 26 ' 5 - 267 ' 
Pereira's 'MaTeSa S lo ?^t of, that except for a citation in 
nately, no S? edlCa ' l c ™ And no reference to it. Unfortu- 
plant. Nees was convf^i \°u h ?7 e been Pervert of the Breslau 
citratus were identical n ,t hlS i? nd De Candolle ' s Anch ' ' "■'"" 
agrees well with tS a, the other ha nd, his description also 
that is, the < lemon «•! ™>' Won Schoenanthus of Roxburgh, 
he says the hermanh;!!i-? aV , e aare ^ ards two characters. Firstly, 
they only very excenHnnil (se8sile > B P ikelets are awned > which 
he describes the out* / 7 are in le mon-grass ; and, secondly, 
having 5-6 ff reen n«t 8 - ? of the hermaphrodite spikelet as 
everfound mor, . -\' ~ "I'Per half, whilst I have hardly 
none at all. How P v« i? mtra carinal nerves and more often find 
» Allgem. Gartenzeit., vol. iii. (1835), p. 266. 
