SECTION III: G. HIRSUTUM 189 



the glands, and in being biennial. But, be it observed, these corrections 

 have never been published, and are mentioned here in order to show 

 that with Linnaeus himself originated the error of confusing Miller's 

 West Indian G. hirsutum with the Indian G. obtusifolium. Subse- 

 quent botanists went a stage further and confused both these with 

 G. herbaceum. 



The earliest and one of the best published plates of G. hirsutum, 

 Linn., is that given by Murray (1776), who furnishes a detailed 

 description. He did not, however, know the country whence 

 it had been obtained, since the seed cultivated by him had been 

 supplied by Professor Spielmann of Strasburg, who wrote on the 

 packet, G. macedonicum. Bryan Edwards (' Hist. Br. Col. Jamaica,' Jamaica 

 1793, ii., 268) speaks of green-seeded cotton as the form with the plant - 

 wool adhering so firmly that it had to be hand-picked. In his time 

 cotton cultivation had practically been abandoned, and the present 

 species was that used by the sugar-planters for making wicks for 

 their oil lamps. There were two forms recognised, and both had the 

 advantage of flowering and fruiting early. 



Of the older authors who deal with cotton from the standpoint Sainte- 

 of the planter, Eohr occupies a foremost place. He lived in Sainte- 

 Croix for some years, and from 1785 to 1790 conducted a searching 

 inquiry into the best cotton plants and the most satisfactory methods 

 of their cultivation. In his little book (I.e. 57-61) he discusses 

 four kinds under the name of ' Muselin Cottons.' The best of these 

 he procured from Jamaica. He gives such particulars as to leave 

 little doubt as to the botanical determination here given being 

 correct. The seeds when fresh were coated with a green fuzz and 

 a firmly adhering floss. There was also a white and a red kind, the 

 latter being most probably the var. religiosa (below). 



Not only has G. hirsutum, Linn., Syst. Nat., to be excluded from Miscon- 

 this species, but the G. hirsutum ofLamk., Cav., Swartz.. and Willd., as 

 well, since all these authors laboured under misconceptions regarding 

 the plant. Lamarck, for example, explains that in pursuance of the 

 fact that Linnaeus accepted Plukenet's table 299 f. 1 (see Plate 

 No. 15 B.) as manifesting his plant, the description of the bracteoles 

 had to be amended to ' ovate entire ' from ' deeply incised,' as some 

 authors had supposed them to be. When it is recollected (as I Descrip- 

 have shown above) that the flowers published by Plukenet were 

 drawn from imagination (are not at all events present on the speci- picture 

 men 15 A.), Lamarck's G. hirsutum with ovate entire bracteoles falls 



