lvi A SKETCH OF THE LIFE ОР 
for some unaccountable reason cites Smith as the authority for them. Тһе practice, 
for which there was little excuse, seeing that Don not only had  Hamilton's names 
before him, but that Hamilton had in 1819 incidentally pointed out the true state 
of affairs in an interesting contribution to the Edinburgh Philosophical Journal? has 
been almost universally followed. It is one of the oddities of modern citation that 
а different treatment should be accorded to the Hamilton plants described in Symes' 
Embassy and in Smith's Erotic Botany respectively. We know that in both cases 
the relationship of Hamilton to the actual publication was identical. Yet in the сазе 
of the Ауа plants, though Symes tells us explicitly that Banks wrote the descriptions, 
we attribute the publication to Hamilton; in the case of the Nepal ones, though 
Hamilton expressly states that the names were his, we attribute the publication to 
Smith.’ ; 
The only other paper relative to Nepal that Hamilton issued was a brief account 
of the Nepalese aconites, which he was induced by Mr. (afterwards Sir) W. J, Hooker 
to pablish in the Edinburgh Journal of Science for 1844. This, as it happens, is one 
of the most interesting of Hamilton’s short papers; at the same time it is one of the 
least satisfactory. Не was greatly interested in the question of the identity of the 
source of this arrow poison, but could get no satisfactory information during 1809—03. 
When at Nathpur in 1810 he organised a search for the plant or plants by 
means of native collectors, but unfortunately the men returned too early in the year, 
and some of the specimens he obtained are still indeterminable? A short field note 
sent by Hamilton from Nepal is given in full by Roxburgh in the Flora Indica. The 
note refers to Hovenia dulcis and, in the first edition of Roxburgh’s work, the 
veteran Carey makes an interesting comment on the vernacular name obtained by 
Hamilton, which illustrates the risk of taking down names by the ear only, a practice 
that, as we learn from his letters, Hamilton always avoided where he could do so: 
the comment further gives Carey’s shrewd estimate of vernacular names generally. 
We find from Hamilton’s letters that Wallich suggested collaboration with him ina 
new work on the botany of Nepal, but that Hamilton did not accept the invitation. We 
learn, too, from the same source, that though Don gives Hamilton’s name equal 
ДЕРТ лл шоу ы ы YY ОБОИ 
1 Поп quotes Hamilton's names or synonyms for all other species, but for those given in Erotic Botany һе has 
quoted Smith as the author, in spite of what Hamilton himself has told us; though, even with Tegard to these species, his 
citation of Hamilton’s name Sussodia oppositifolia, which Smith changed first to Buchanania oppositifolia aud then 
to Colebrookea oppositifolia, shows that Smith was not even responsible for the Suggestion that the plant dealt 
with was a new genus, and that, moreover, Don was aware of the fact. 
* Notice of the Progress of Botanical Science in Bengal, being the substance of à letter from Dr. Wallich 
Superintendent of the Botanical Garden near Calcutta to Francis Hamilton, р.з. & Pag LB.: Edi» Phi E 
Journ, i. 1819. This paper is usually attributed to Wallich! The authors who do this, however, are not quite just is 
Wallich—the age of self-advertisement had hardly begun in 1819, 1 
~ > The simplest way out ofthe diffixulty is to recognise frankly the connection of both author and editor with thes 
fpecies and to cite them aecordingly. Neither Banks nor Smith themselves assert their own authorship, and now that cin 
facts are known, it is advisable to cite the names or synonyms as being of joint authorship, e.g., Epidendr ids 
Buch. & Smith. ея 
* An account of a genus including the Herba Toxicaria of the Himalayan ae ; : 
natives poison their arrows: Edinb. Journ. Sci. i. 1524. Tan Mountains, or the plant with which tho 
> Stapf: Monograph of the Aconites of India: in the present volume of 
Calcutta. 
“ Roxburgh : Flora Indica, ed. Carey & W.llich, ii. 416 : 1824, 
the Anna!s of the Royal Botanic Garden 
