﻿RGINICUS. 39 



short step necessary to bring his researches to a successful issue. 

 He pointed out, rightly enough, that the name rested upon t. 241, 

 fig. 4, of Plukenet's Almagestum, but it did not occur to him to 

 consult the specimens on which Plukenet's figure was based. That 

 the figure itself did not suggest the solution is probably to be 

 accounted for by the prima facie unlikeliness that a plant called 

 "arbor zeylanica" was really a native of North America. 



The first notice of the plant, as has been already said, is that of 

 Plukenet in 1720 [Alma^tum, p. 44, Phytographia, t. cexli, fig. 4), 

 who defines it as "Arbor Zeylanic, Cotinifoliis subtus lanugine 

 villosis, floribus albis, Cuculi modo laciniatis." In Plukenet's 

 Herbarium (Herb. Sloane, xciii, fol. 209, and xcv, fol. 78) are speci- 

 mens of the plant, referred in each case to the plate in Phytographia, 

 and to Bay's Historia Plantarmn (iii., Dendrologia, 124) : the latter 

 specimen is labelled by Plukenet, "Arbor indica Cotini foliis subtus 

 lanugine villosis floribus albis Cuculi ad instar laciniatis ex insula 

 Zeylon." These specimens and the figure in Phytographia un- 

 mistakably represent Chionanthus virginicus L. 



Burmann (Thes. Zeyl 31 (1737) ) cites Plukenet's description, 

 and adds the reference to Bay; and the plant having thus found its 

 way into a Ceylon list, attracted the discriminating attention of 

 Linnffius (Fl. Zeyl. 5 (1748)), who quotes Burmann's reference to 

 Plukenet as a synonym of his Chionanthus. pedunculis nndtifloris 

 paniculatis, founded on two specimens in Hermann's Herbarium. 

 But in a note he expresses a doubt as to Plukenet's plant, which 

 he rightly identifies with Catesby's "Fringe Tree." He says : — 

 " Utrum haee eadem sit varietas Chionanthi pedunculis tri/idis trifioHs, 

 quam delineat Pluk. phyt. 241, f. 4, & Catesb. carol. 1, t. 68, vel 

 an distincta species, dubius hsereo ; certe facies hnjus admodum 

 recedit." Five years later his doubt had been solved, and in the 

 Species Plantarum, p. 8 (1753), he cites Petiver's and Catesby's 

 figures as types of his Chionanthus virginica, although he quotes 

 Burmann's description (which is really Plukenet's) under his C. 

 zeylonica (now Linociera purpurea). He does not seem to have 

 realised that the Burmann-Plukenet description and the figure in 

 the Phytographia referred to one and the same plant. 



Lamarck (Encycl. Meth. i. 735 (1783)) seems to have thought 

 Plukenet's plant the type of Linnaeus's C. zeylonica, which was 

 therefore scarcely separable from C. virginica. He says :— " Cette 

 plante a de si grands rapports avec la precedente, qu'il semble 

 qu'elle n'en soit qu'une variete": his description and figure (t. 9, 

 fig. 2) show this, for he describes the leaves as " subtus villosns," 

 and the figure, as DeCandolle has pointed out (Prodr. viii. 297) is 

 an adaptation of Plukenet's. C. zeylanica Lam. is therefore rightly 

 placed by DeCandolle as a synonym of Linociera cotinifolia. 



For the presence of Plukenet's plant in our books as a distinct 

 species, Willdenow is responsible. In his Species PI. i. 47 (1797), 

 he separates it from C. zeylanica* as " C. cotinifolia W.," giving a 

 short diagnosis, followed by citations from Burmann and Plukenet, 



