138 THE JOURNAL OF BOTANY 
them with “much finer ones” in the possession of Sir Joseph 
Banks. Banks gave him the brief oo appended to tet s 
introduction, which is a transcript of one by ceopiacis in the 
ay tee MSS. The plant is not named, nor spe ed any n appear 
n Davidson’s account of the species which follows Wilson s intro- 
duction and was published, with a plate, in Phil. Trans. lxxiv. 
Peet (1784). Davidson speaks of the plant as having ce first 
und by Alexander Anderson, dat brought it to Dr. Young of the 
General Hoapital of Santa Luc 
There are no specimens rae Wilson in the Banksian Her- 
barium, nor do I find those from Young, which according to 
Solander’s MS. should exist mere the plant is represented by 
specimens from Dominica by De Ponthieu, from which it would 
seem from the MS. that the eat pipe dee was taken: when 
this was written the specific name “ fragrans’”’ was spe but for 
this floribunda was dee ted by Dryander, a that name, which 
was given by Swartz (Prodr. 41, 1784), has been suboaasantly 
accepted for the doer hether Swartz’s plant is that to which 
the name has been ee rally applied is a matter that will doubtless 
be decided by Messrs. Fawcett and Rendle when they come to the 
Rubiacee in their Flan of Jamaica: at present it may be noted 
that the Laren in Herb. Banks which Swartz himself named 
floribund sheen: referred to Exostemma triflora G. Don (C 
ht). 
According to Vitmann (Summ. Suppl. i. 264) as quoted by 
Roemer & Schultes (Syst. v. 19) the plant was named C. Luciana 
in Herb. Banks. I have not been ae to consult Vitman’s Supple- 
ment, which does not nen to be in any of the London libraries, 
but no such name is now. to be found in Herb. Banks nor in the 
Solander MSS. The rhe Brod sed which humic pene 
from Banks is ele attributed to “ David” (Roem 
‘Davids ” (Ind. Kew.), but although, as has been pis David 
son gives a full panel of the plant, he nowhere names it, n 
does the name appear anywhere in oo paper in Phil. Trans. which 
is usually referred to as containing it 
t seems to me, therefore, that Kentish’s name Sancte Lucia 
must be restored, and that the synonymy of the plant is as 
follows :— 
ExostemMa Sanota-Lucia comb. n 
tio oct Sancte Lucie Kentish, Raw Species of Bark, p. 52 
0. Horiburia Sw. Prodr. 41 (1788) ? 
Exostemma floribundum Roem. & Sch. Syst. v. 19 (1819), et 
auct. pl. 
C. St. an “David Philos. Transact. i. 74” (R. & 8. lc, 
sed fa 
C. Lue sien: « Herb. eee ap. Vitm. Summ. Suppl. i. p. 264” 
(1802). (BR. & S. 1. ¢.) 
