234 
XXIX.—PERSIMMONS. 
(Diospyros Kaki, Linn. £. and D. Roxburghii, Carriére.) 
W. Borrine HEMSLEY. 
In the Botanical Magazine for April, 1907 (t. 8127) a coloured 
figure, together with a description, is given of one of the numerous 
varieties of Diospyros Kaki, Linn. f., a species which is generally 
considered to include the ‘Schitze’ of the Chinese and the ‘ Kaki’ 
of Diospyros Kaki, Linn. f. Concerning this point a somewhat 
heated controversy was carried on upwards of forty years ago. 
The chief disputants were Professor J. Decaisne, of the Jardin 
des Plantes of Paris, an r. E. A. Carriére, also of that 
establishment and the critical editor of the Revue Horticole. 
Briefly stated, Decaisne challenged the validity of certain species 
proposed and described by Carriére and he also asserted that 
Carriére had confused and interchanged the names of previously 
described species. Decaisne’s views were widely accepted, and, to 
a great extent, have prevailed up to the present time. He maintained 
that D. Kaki, Linn. f. and D. Schitze, Bunge, were distinct species ; 
that the species described by Carritre as D. Roxburghii was the 
true D. Kaki; and that the species recognised by Carriére as 
D. Kaki was in reality D. Schitze. Fortunately Decaisne backed | 
his opinion by drjed specimens, named in his own handwriting ; 4 
set of which he sent to Kew. Whether D. Schitze, Bunge, founded 
on specimens from the neighbourhood of Peking, is the same as 
D. Kaki, is, perhaps, not beyond doubt; and there is yet much to 
be done with the numerous specimens in herbaria from China and 
Japan named D. Lotus, Linn., before this point can be definitely 
settle 
_ The error referred to above in the synonymy of D. Kaki is the 
inclusion of D. Rozxburghii, Carr., initiated by Decaisne and 
accepted by most subsequent writers. After the publication of the 
plate cited in the Botanical Magazine I examined more carefully 
the Indian specimens referred to D. Kaki, and came to the 
conclusion that they were specifically different, and further com~ 
parisons led to their identification with cultivated specimens an 
the figures of D. Roxburghii, Carr. 
defined what he regarded as D. Lotus, Linn., D. chinensis, Blume, 
and D. Schitze, Bunge, and he described D. Psendo-Lotus and 
