SPECIES OF MARTIUS, GRIFFITH AND BLUME. 41 
which in all 46 species are recorded, are fully described. The genus Daemonorops 
is entirely omitted in the pages above mentioned, and there is no citation in them 
of the second volume of Blume’s ** Rumphia," which bears on the title-page the 
date 1836. It may be observed with regard to this volume of Blume’s work that 
it contains the figures of several species of Daemonorops the descriptions of which 
appeared many years later in the third volume of the same work. From these data we 
may conclude that the first edition of pages 179-230 of the “Historia Naturalis 
Palmarum ” was published before 1836, the more so because in these pages there is 
no reference to the first edition of Blanco’s ‘“ Flora de Filipinas,” which bears 
the date 1837. 
There is little or no doubt that the portion of the second volume of ‘‘Rum- 
phia," containing plates 171—173, where the species of Daemonorops, the descriptions 
of which first appeared in the third volume, were figured, was not available to the 
publie before the year 1843, although the title-page of the second volume is dated 
1836. For this reason I believe that the first edition of pages 179-230 of the 
* Historia Naturalis Palmarum " should be cited before the plates 71-137, as this 
first edition in all probability made its appearance in 1836 and the plates in 1843, 
In the second edition of pages 179-230 there are descriptions of 13 species of 
Daemonorops and of only six species of Calamus. As regards these pages, we might 
suppose that they were not published later than 1846, because there is no feferente 
in them to Griffith’s paper on Indian Palms which appeared in 1845 in the 
* Calcutta Journal of Natural History.” It seems, however, that the true date of 
these pages is the year 1849, because there is a notice in Hooker's “ Journal of 
Botany ,” 1, page 221 (1849), in which mention is made of the publication of one 
of the later parts of Martius’ work, containing also 49 pages, belonging to part 
7, which were presented to subscribers in substitution of others, the paper of which 
had changed colour. 
That the enumeration of the Calami in the third volume of the ** Historia 
Naturalis Palmarum" was completed in the year 1849 was explained by the 
illustrious author himself in a note appended to page 828 of that volume. It 
is also stated there that though the Introduction in Volume iii bears the date 
1847, the volume was not available to the publie before 1849. This circumstance 
may possibly account for the fact that in the second edition of pages 179-230 of 
the “ Historia Naturalis Palmarum” there is no reference to the text of the 
third volume of ‘ Rumpbhia. " 
The dates of publication of the species of Calamus and Daemonorops, which are 
mentioned or described in the works of Martius, Blume and Griffith, so far as I can 
make out, are as follows :— 
1842 ? Martius; Hist. Nat. Palm, iii, fírst edition of pp. 179-230, 
1843 Blume; Rumphia ii, pp. 93-173 and pl. 71-187. 
1845 Griffith ; Palm. Brit. Ind. in Caleutta Journal of Natural History, v. 
1845 ? Blume; Rumphia, iii, pl. 134-154, without descriptions. 
1849 ? Martius : Hist. Nat. Palm. iii, 2nd edition of the pp. 179-230. : m 
1849 Martius ; The enumeration of Calamus at the end of vol. iii of the Hist. Nat. Palmarum. 
1849 Blume; Rumphia, iii, with the descriptions of Calamus, which bears on the title-page the 
date 1837. 
1850 Griffith ; The Palms of British East India : op. post. : 
Ann. Roy, Bor. Garp. OarcurrA Vor. XI. UN E 
