C 39 ] 



The note concludes by remarking that the plant seems to 

 multiply by proliferous gemmation (i.e., from what he calls 

 the second sort of flowers or false blossoms) or by suckers or 

 in either manner, but his observations could not be completed, 

 for which he gives reasons. 



Rumpf's plant we consider is an Agave that is established as 

 a denizen in India, and is markedly distinct from the species 

 naturalized in S. Europe, as well as from the true Agave 

 americana of Linnaeus, namely (E) of our Descriptive List 

 A. Cantala, Eoxb. 



We must now return to the "American Aloe" in 

 Europe. Hermann, Professor of Medicine and Botany at 

 Leyden, in his Catalogue of the Botanic Garden there (1687) 

 enumerates five species of Aloe of which three are true Aloes, 

 one is the " Aloe folio in oblongum aculcum abeunte" of K. Bauhin's 

 Pinax, while the fourth from the figure (at p. 17) is an Euagave 

 which be describes and calls Aloe americana sobolifera. It 

 was brought from America and flowered in a private garden 

 at Harlem shortly before the compilation of the Catalogue. 



In the Historia Plantarum (Lond. typ. Maria Clerk, 1688, 

 pp. 1196 1201) Ray describes four species of the true Aloe. 

 He then deals with Aloe americana and distinguishes, 



(1) Aloe americana, Clusius 



(2) Aloe americana minor, Munting 



(3) Aloe serrata major umbellifera, Munting 



(4) A loe purpurca laeuis, Munting 



(5) Aloe brasiliensis ( = caraguata) Markgraf. 



Three species of Caraguata (all of Markgraf*) follow, and 

 the chapter concludes with 



(6) Aloeferox, Munting 



Bay's succeeding chapter discusses certain species described 

 by Hernandez (v. supra) under Mexican names which Ray consi- 

 dered (though not without doubt in some instances apparently) 

 to be referable to the group (so to speak) of Aloe americana. 

 Two of these had been included in the previous chapter (VII). 



Before discussing the identity of Ray's species it will bo convenient to refer 

 to certain other authors, mostly his contemporaries. Pluhenet (London, 1696) 



* We have not made extracts from the works of Piso and MarJcgraf 

 (ed. De Laet, Amsterdam ap. Elzevir. 1658) because all that is important 

 in their writings can he traced in works ordinarily more accessible. 



