VOL. L.] PHILOSOPHICAL TRANSACTIONS. 183 



luxuriancy of the shoots, which Koempfer so justly describes in his varnish-tree. 

 One of these American ones even seems to promise the same height as the Japan 

 rhus; whereas this little shrubby toxicodendron still preserves the same dwarfish 

 slow growing habit, that it has in its native country. 



This leads me, in the next place, to show, that these two plants must be of 

 different gen uses; the one a rhus, and the other a toxicodendron : and if so, ac- 

 cording to Mr. Miller, they ought to be properly distinguished, and not ranked 

 together, as Dr. Linneus has done. In order to prove this, let us then examine 

 Koempfer's description of the parts of the flower, and see whether it does not 

 answer exactly to the genus of rhus ; and whether the flowers are not male and 

 female in themselves, that is, hermaphrodites, on the same tree. And yet Dr. 

 Dillenius, and the authors that have copied after him, say, that his toxicoden- 

 dron has the male blossoms on one plant, and the female on the other; whence 

 it must evidently be another genus. It appears, however, that Dr. Dillenius was 

 not altogether ignorant of this difference of genus in these two plants; but rather 

 than his toxicodendron, which he had made agree exactly in the leaves, should 

 not agree in the fructification, he makes the accurate Koempfer guilty of an un- 

 pardonable oversight, in not taking notice of the difference of the sexes of this 

 varnish-tree in different plants ; whereas we find, that nothing can be more mi- 

 nutely and judiciously described, than he has done both the male and female 

 parts of the blossom, which change into the fruit on the same plant. 



Mr. Miller remarks very justly, that the leaves of the same tree often vary 

 much in shape, such as those of the poplar, sallow, &c. But in answer to this 

 we may reasonably suppose, that Dr. Koempfer, who was on the spot, would 

 not choose for his specimens leaves of the most uncommon sorts that were on 

 the tree, and neglect the most common. This would be carrying the supposition 

 further than can be allowed, unless we suppose this author had not the under- 

 standing even of a common gardener ; for otherwise, I am persuaded. Sir Hans 

 Sloane would not have thought his specimens worth purchasing. 



I now come to that part of Mr. Miller's reply, relating to the China varnish- 

 tree,* that was raised from seeds sent to the Royal Society by Father D'Incarville ; 

 where he still insists on it, that this is the same with the spurious varnish tree of 

 Koempfer. His reasons are, that notwithstanding the indentation and roundness 

 of the bottom of the lobe leaves of the China varnish-tree, and though the lobe 

 leaves of the spurious Japan varnish-tree come to a point at the base, and are 

 nowise indented, but quite even on the edges; yet he says, because they have 

 :in equal number of pinnae, or lobe leaves, on the whole leaf of each tree, they 

 must be the same. 



• The true China varnish-tree is supposed to be the rhus vernix of Linneus. 



