311 
CONFUSED CONCEPTION OF LINNAEUS’S ANDROPOGON SCHOEN- 
ANTHUS.—The second edition of the Species Plantarum* (1763) 
agrees with the first in the definition of Andropogon Schoenanthus. 
Previous, however, to its publication Linnaeus had already added to 
it Rumphius’ ‘ Schoenanthum Amboinicum’} as a synonym, and 
this was kept up in the following editions. For a fuller account 
of this reduction I would refer the reader to Cymbopogon 
citratus. The identification was accepted by Lamarck,t Willde- 
now,§ Roxburgh] and others, and was gradually extended so as 
to include a number of other species, as will be seen from the 
paragraphs dealing with their history. An important factor in 
this development was the publication of a description and plate 
of ‘A. Schoenanthus, L.,’ from cultivated specimens, by Ven- 
tenat,{ which requires therefore to be explained. Lamarck, in 
1783, stated that “ Andropogon Schoenanthus”—he included 
under it (a) Rumphius’ plant (= A. citratus, DC.), (3) Rheede’s 
Kodi-pullu (=A. flecuosus, Nees ex Steud.) and (y) the same 
author’s Ramacciam (=A. muricatus, Retz.)—was cultivated in 
the Jardin du Roi (Jardin des Plantes) and that he saw living 
specimens of it. Mr. H. Hua, who kindly looked up the Lamarckian 
specimens of ‘A.. Schoenanthus, informs me that there are 
no specimens from the Jardin du Roi in Lamarck’s collection. 
What they actually were we therefore do not know. Seventeen 
years later we hear again of ‘A. Schoenanthus’ being in cultiva- 
tion in Paris, but this time in the garden of J. M. Cels, the 
distinguished horticulturist. Ventenat gave an elaborate descrip- 
tion of it, accompanied by a very good plate. He does not say 
where it came from, but merely states that it had been growing 
there for several years. On the other hand, he indicates, just as 
Linnaeus did, India and Arabia as the home of the species. 
Fortunately Ventenat’s original specimen is preserved in Delessert’s 
collection at Geneva, and with it are two other sheets of exactly the 
same plant, collected by Riche. One of them is labelled : ‘‘ Andvro- 
pogon Schoenanthus, Linn., Hort. Cels. pl. ex India, Riche. Herb. de 
Ventenat”’; the other contains merely the words “e Indes—Riche.” 
Riche was ‘the naturalist on board the ‘Espérance,’ one of the 
vessels sent in search of the ‘La Perouse.’ After having been 
forcibly detained on the return voyage with other members of the 
expedition in Java, he went to Mauritius (Isle de France) in 
May, 1794, returned to Java in August or September, and in the 
following year sailed again with Labillardiere and others of his 
colleagues for Mauritius, which they reached in May, 1795. 
Labillardiére stayed there till late in the autumn and arrived in 
France in the spring of 1796. Whether Riche returned with him 
or in the following year with Lahaye, another of the naturalists of 
the expedition, I do not know. In any case this much is certain ; 
Riche never was in India, and Ventenat’s ‘A. Schoenanthus’ was 
raised from seeds collected by Riche in Mauritius about 1795. The 
indication “Indes” originated evidently from the vague sense, 
* Linnaeus, Spec. Plant. ed. ii. (1763), p. 1481. 
+ Rumphius, Herbar. Amboin. vol. v. (1750), p. 181, tab. 72. 
+ Lamarck, Encycl. vol. i. (1783), p. 375. 
§ Willdenow, Spec. Pl. vol. iv., part ii. (1806), p » 916. 
|| Roxburgh, Fl. Ind., ed. Carey & Wall., vol. i. (1820); p. 278, 
{ Ventenat, Hort. Cels, (1800), tab. 89, 
