NOTES ON INDIGOFERA 187 
E: ee Murray, Syst. Veg. ed. xiii. p. 564 (1774). This is 
also cabaret ans Retz, Obs. p. 29 (1786), which was collected by 
Koenig 
I. pisperma L. Syst. Nat. iii. Appendix, p. 232 (1768) ; et in 
Berg & Schmidt, Darstell, u. Beschr. Officin. Gew. iv. 80 (18 
I. earoliniaia Miller, Gard. Dict. ed. viii. no. 8, probably (1768). 
I. caroliniana Walter, Fl. Carolin. p. 187 (1788 
I, disperma is taken up by Linneus from Trew Ehret. 24, t. 55; 
he had no specimen of it. 
j & qa i Mant. ii. p. 272 (1771). 
Linneeus diagnoses and describes this plant, but no synonyms 
are hetind the ‘plant itself Ps exactly the same as I. suffruticosa 
Miller, Gard. Dict. ed. viii. no. 2 (1768). 
Before discussing the pebutice: of recognizing the older name, 
it will be more ah vmae to deal with the treatment accorded to 
I. Anil by De Can He recognizes three varieties :— 
a@ OLIGOPHYLLA OC Prod. Be p. 225. Foliis 3-4 jugis legumini- 
bus arcuatis. Sloane, Jam. t. 196, i. a. ne Ill. t. 626 aches 
(v. s. specimen e Sancto- -Domingo et ins. Mauri 
n so far as this variety is based on Sloane’s fae and descrip- 
tion, there is no room for doubt, for the type from which the 
drawing is made is present in the ‘Sloane Herbarium. The plant 
Nn ‘ 
nearly allied to I. Anil, it is perhaps better treated as ‘distinct. 
But, while this is the case, it has to be remembered that on the 
same sheet with two eat prahe of this rere a oligophylla there is 
glued down a specimen of the cultivated form of I. Anil B polyphylla 
DC. (which is J, tinctoria Miller, not of Linn, nor of Forsk.), and on 
the next sheet is an example of the wild form of I. Anil B polyphylia 
DC. (which is J. suffruticosa Miller, I. Anil L., and J. Guatimala 
Lunan). _ Sloane has marked ‘ precedentis ‘varietas.” 
w we turn to the Prodromus Herbarium, we find that 
the svitiinl which has been placed in the cover r of J. dnil consists 
of two specimens—(1) a specimen collected by Bory St. Vincent, 
locality not noted, which is actu ually = = a oligophylia, i.e. is I. tr wail. 
lensis H.B. K.; and (2) a specimen from San Domingo, collected 
by Pilea: This, however, instead of being I. truwillensis, is the 
ndian J. tinctoria, and is not distinguishable from the form of 
I. tinctoria figured by Sloane, t. 179, f. 2 
. truviliensis H. B. K. (I. tinctoria a oligophylla DC.) is very far 
from being a common plant. eis the specimens from the 
Orotava Sire and from Triano and that from “otk St. Vin- 
