10 THE JOURNAL OF BOTANY 
from Oxford, Dublin, and Capetown we have to thank Prof. Vines, 
rof. Perceval Wright, and Prof. MacOwan. 
n the works of some of the botanical writers of the end of the 
seventeenth and beginning of the eighteenth centuries we find 
figures of. plants of this genus, the correct interpretation of which 
is a matter of primary importance. Very frequently these figures 
will be found quoted by subsequent writers under more than one 
species, leading to considerable confusion. 
- Morison, in his Plantarum Historia, vol. iii, (1699), figures 
two Cotyledons—Sedum Africanum Jrutescens, &¢., Sect. 12, tab. 7, 
89; and Sedum africanum teretifolium, Sect. 12, tab. 7, fig. 40. 
The first of these is quoted by Haworth (Suppl. Pl. Suce. p. 24) as 
& synonym of C. ramosa; the second (p. 23) under the somewhat 
heterogeneous species (, spuria, : 
n Caspar Commelin’s Hort, Med. Amstelaedamensis (1706) one 
is figured—Cotyledon Africana frutescens folio longo et angusto, flore 
j is 
the Oxford Herbarium, but seems rather to be the plant figured by 
De Candolle (Pl. Grasses, t. 168) as C. ungulata Lam. 
he most important of the older figures of Cotyledon are those 
of J. Burman in his Decades, 1738. To man of these he subse- 
very variously cited: for instance, tab. 22, fig. 1, Cotyledon foliis 
angustis, &c., is quoted by Linnwus (Sp. Pl. ed. 2, p, 614) for his 
] arck (1786) quotes it for his (. ungulata ; Haworth 
18 C, papillaris ; and Sims (Bot. Mag. t, 2518 (1824) ) 
ta 
The plant figured by Burman (tab. 19, fig. 2) as Cotyledon foliis 
s 3 of Lamarck quotes it 
or his C. mucronata, placing it as one of his “ espéces imparfaite- 
ment connues”’; it was only known to him from Burman’s figure. 
De Candolle (Prodr. iii, P- 398 (1828) ) gives a brief diagnosis, and 
Haworth* ap 
q H ; . 
iii. p. 378) en A among the “ imperfectly known and doubtful 
y. 
rediscovery of a plant known to the older writers. Th 
little doubt that this is C. jasminiflora Salm Dyck, Whisk’ has tie 
“2 
We interpret Burman’s figures as follows :— 
ee etn 
* Weh y : ; : 
Burman’s fete Haworth’s type of this, and do not consider it agrees with 
