FRANCIS BLACKWELL FORBES 21 
British Museum and Kew. Of a genial disposition and agreeable 
manners, he became a welcome visitor at the National Herbarium, 
where he e Serer cordial relations triers ir then mr (Mr. 
Carruthers) and with the writer of this A committee of the 
Royal Society had been formed in 1884. to. report on the Chinese 
Flora; on the ti Mr. C thers, Forbes was invited to 
join this body, and placed at its disposal the material he ha 
already accumulated. This, which was indeed the basis of the 
enumeration, included his extensive bibliography as well as a list 
of the specimens in the National Herbarium and Kew, com 
e 
at his expense by Mr. Hemsley. The result was the production 
of the useful work, occupying three volumes (xxiii, xxvi and xxxv 
of the Linnean Society’s Journal, which is conveniently known as 
the Index Flore Sinensis. Although Forbes’s name appears as 
joint author of the work with Mr. apm b its execution must, 
Mr. Hemsley and his co- operators,” for Forbes became again 
engaged in commercial pursuits. He, however, remained keenly 
rently unreasonable delay which attended its completion—its 
duction extended over nearly twenty years. On his last visit 6 
staff the possibility of adding to the Index an enumeration of the 
Chinese fee but this led to no result. 
s on his way home from China i in June, 1882, that Forbes 
visited at and inspected the packet of Pekin plants collected in 
1740-1747 by the Jesuit missionary d’Incarville, which formed 
the So of a paper by Franchet in Bull. Soc. Bot. France, 
(1882); an abstract of this paper, with notes of his own, 
foRia Forbes’s first contribution to this Journal (1883, 9-15).* In 
he same year (pp. 145-149) he Lepergect a paper “On Cudrania 
triloba and its uses in China,” which shows him an apt pupil of 
ance, whose contributions often contained valuable additions to 
our knowledge of the economic pro s of the plants he 
described. In his paper on Chinese O ou — bere 1884, 80— 
}) and his note on Bugenta scale gah 24) he rescues 
7 been overlooked by spimaoeca shes ; here he dan the 
ame Quercus Bungeana+ for the tree which had been called 
sts 
1885 he pablished, also in this Journal, to whose pages indeed his 
contributions seem to have been confined a review of Franchet’s 
__ _* It may be worth noting here that Petiver’s ‘‘ Herbarium nostrum Sinense 
pst which is mentioned in this paper as not having been traced, will be 
-M 292-4. 
is retained in Index Fl. Sinensis, ii. 508, but it is mot easy to 
see why, as Q. a acutissima Carruthers, cited cin ait dates from 1861. 
