SECTION IV : G. BARBADENSE 269 



fore, the absolute type of the species as originally conceived. It is re- 

 produced here (see Plate 46 A). It was fairly accurately represented 

 by Plukenet's figure, also for convenience reproduced by me (Plate 46 B), 

 except that the fruit shown is not present on the specimen, though a 

 tuft of the seeds and wool, presumably taken from the fruit (Plate 46 A, 

 f. 1) is attached, and these are fully in accord with the usually 

 understood condition in this species, though they are not described 

 by either Plukenet or Linnaeus. The leaves are distinctly 3-lobed, 

 the lobes ascending from an imperfectly cordate base, not 5 spreading 

 from a cordate auriculate base, as shown by Parlatore and other 

 botanists who have published plates of what they supposed to be this 

 species. It would in fact seem fairly certain that most authors have 

 confused G. vitifolium, if not G. brasiliense, with the present plant. 

 And this confusion goes back even to Plukenet himself, so that while 

 accepting his t. 188, f. 1 (Plate 46 B) as the type of the species (as 

 Linnaeus did), we must exclude all the synonyms cited by Plukenet. 



There is no specimen of G. barbadense, Linn., in the Linnean Other 

 Herbarium, London, though two plants are in Linnaeus' hand-writing gp^ 

 named ' barbadense ? ' (see Plates Nos. 19 A and 24 C). It is thus mens. 

 certain that Linnaeus had a very incorrect conception of Plukenet's 

 plant ; moreover, Plukenet must have had other specimens before 

 him than the actual type. In the Sloane Herbarium, for example, 

 there are (besides the type) examples of this or some allied plants 

 that it seems desirable to mention in this place, even although not 

 one of them could for a moment be accepted as being Sea Island 

 cotton, as presently known to us : In vol. 56, f . 192, there is a speci- 

 men (one of a series of plants) said to have come from the King's 

 Garden, Montpelier. The leaves are deeply 5-lobed, and on the sheet 

 on which it is mounted has been recorded ' G. arboreum caule levi, 

 Pin.' I am not prepared to accept this as being G. barbadense, though 

 I can suggest no other name for it. In vols. 84, f. 87, and 85, f. 146, 

 &c., are softly pilose 3-lobed leaves of what I think may be G. 

 vitifolium. These belonged to Plukenet and were probably accepted 

 by him as being identical with the plant in vol. 100, f. 105. 



In vol. 132, f. 18 (Duchess of Beaufort's set of plants) there is a 

 specimen said to represent Plukenet's ' Phyt.' t. 188, f. 1, but which is 

 nearer to the leaves in his herb, just mentioned. On the same sheet 

 is mounted a specimen said to have been obtained from Barbados 

 that seems to me to be G. mexicanum certainly not G. barbadense. 

 Both these were doubtless cut from plants grown at the Badminton. 



