FRANCIS HAMILTON (ONCE BUCHANAN), li 
wake Hele a or ae тот М Шы мш tn Sn, Ss 
cause no practical inconvenience, Had а a a ры. PR 
the papers might have been arranged either by subj Г ' 5 Run pan ue 
the advantages gained by such a treatment 7 тоо d TE резимеа, ми 
drawbacks incidental to | алан mo A 
o any system of artificial classification. 
М 2 ° . . 
a! һа graduation. Мени. be emdmdel, М EINER ОО О EE 
however, references to some by hi d iend ge ee be rei There are, 
ere : Ty ме unes and fellow student Smith? A short 
paper published by Hamilton іп 1821? records observations made during the Eestern 
voyage of 1785, and another paper which appeared in the same year’ records 
observations on water-spouts made during the similar voyage of 1788-89 and includeg 
a reference to observations made in 1805. This latter paper is one of considerable 
importance and has been the subject of more than one critical reference. 
Hamilton’s papers relative to the Ava journey are rather numerous. The earliest 
of these, an account of the Launzaa tree,’ the search for which is incidentally alluded 
to by Symes, gives a full description of what Hamilton deemed a new genus, though he 
did not venture to give it a name till botanists in Europe should ‘haye ascertained 
whether or not it be reducible to any known genus of plants.’ The original paper was 
published in 1798 and, when copies of the description reached Europe, Sprengel, reviewing 
the contribution, endorsed the author’s opinion and very appropriately named the genus 
Buchanania in honour of the discoverer." A curious dubiety subsequently arose with 
reference to the genus that should perpetuate Hamilton’s memory among botanists. 
We find that in a letter dated Puttahaut November 17th, 1796, Hamilton (then Buchanan) 
had already expressed a wish to have a genus named after him:— 
* Ag I make little doubt but that the palm will prove a new genus should you be inclined to honour 
me with the name of a plant I would prefer this, as I have discovered it with some labour and danger.” 
The palm in question appears to have been the species now known as Pinanga 
gracilis, so that Hamilton’s view as to its natural rank was sounder than that of Roxburgh, 
who was contented to treat it as an Areca, and was therefore unable to associate it with 
one of its earliest discoverers. Later on Roxburgh, as we learn from Hamilton’s letters, 
did give the name Buchanania to one of Hawilton’s discoveries, the tree known to the 
Sundribun wood-cutters as Amir. To this tree, however, Roxburgh in his published 
works gave the name Andersonia, doubtless because he had discovered in the meantime 
that Sprengel had employed the name Buchanania for the Launzan tree. What is odd 
with regard to this is that, though Roxburgh obviously followed Sprengel in this use of 
the name Buchanania, the editor of Roxburgh’s works attributed the name to Roxburgh, 
recorded all the writings that can be traced by him. It is more 
is practically complete, though it is not impossible that some ot 
Hamilton’s minor notes may even yet have escaped him. The Roysl Society’s Catalogue of Scientific Papers, 
usually a safe guide in matters of this kind, is, in the case of Hamilton’s contributions, somewhat inadequate. 
2 Smith and Sowerby: English Botany: see t. 1590 (1806) and +. 2004 (1809). 
2 Account of an extraordinary appearance of the sea, observed 3lst July 1785, 
о 95/ F. lat. 6° 32^ N. : Edinb. Phil. Journ. v. U I | 
ауу lowes Ж — observed at sea on voyages to and from India: Edinb. Phil. Jowra. v. 
š Description of the tree, called by the Burmas Launzan: Asiatick Researches v. 
$ Symes: Embassy, ed. 1. p. 437. 
7 Sprengel in Schrader's Journal: 1800, | m 
1 In the list in question the writer has 
exhaustive than any previous list and probably 
in 8 voyage from Johanna to 
