304 — 
Cyperus rotundus, with which Hermann’s description agrees. It 
is evident that the “ Herba Schoenanthi”’ found its way into the 
Flora Zeylanica through Burmann’s ‘careless interpretation of 
Hermann’s Kalanduru, and that Linnaeus was wrong if, indeed, 
his term “ India” was meant for Ceylon. 
The next question is, did Linnaeus possess specimens of 
A. Schoenanthus (in the sense of the “ Herba Schoenanthi”) or 
any other Indian specimens which he considered representative 
of his A. Schoenanthus? Munro* has stated that there are in 
Linnaeus’s herbarium two specimens of “A. laniger” (that is 
“Herba Schoenanthi’’), one in the cover containing Avena, the 
other placed with Festuca and. written up as “ Nardus spuria 
Gangitis, Lob.” In both cases he was mistaken. ‘The specimen 
in the Avena cover is without ary name or other note. When 
and whence Linnaeus got it, and even whether he himseif placed it 
there, will probably never be known. In my opinion it is a sample 
of A. marginatus, Steud., from South Africa. The other sheet 
contains a couple of leaf-tufts, or rather their bases. They belong 
probably to Ctentuwm americanum, Spreng., an aromatic grass which 
was figured and described by Parkinson first (p. 115), as “ Natdus 
gangitis spuria Narbonensis,”. and then (p. 1688) as ‘“ Nardo 
gangiti spuriae Narbonensi similis planta Virginiana.” But 
Munrot also pointed out that there was a specimen of “A. Schoe- 
nanthus, L.” in the Linnaean herbarium, and he says of it: 
“A. Schoenanthus, L. From India and Arabia. This is the 
plant generally called ‘A. Martini, Roxb., ‘A. pachnodes,’ 
Trin., and many other names. It is quite distinct from Wallich’s 
A. Schoenanthus. lLinnaeus’s specimen is remarkably well 
figured by Ventenat, Cels. t. 89.°> ‘The only word on the sheet is 
“* Schoenanthus,” written by Linnaeus. The specimen itself 
consists of the upper part of a culm with a few leaves and a 
panicle. One thing is at once clear. It is not “ Herba Schoe- 
nantht.” Nor is it A. Martini (or A. pachnodes), unless this 
name is made to include the whole of Hackel’s A. Schoenanthus. 
It is indeed very similar to Ventenat’s figure, cited above; but 
this was made, as I shall have to show later on, from 4 specimen 
raised from seeds collected in Mauritius, and represents A. prut- 
nosus, Nees ex Steud. The Mauritius specimens, placed side by side 
with Linnaeus’s “‘ Schoenanthus,” do not exactly match it. The 
latter is a slender plant with narrow leaves, slightly rounded at 
the base, rather narrow reddish spathes and small spikelets, such as 
are characteristic of the Chinese specimens enumerated by Rendle 
under ‘Cymbopogon Schoenanthus, Spreng., var. caestus Hack.’ 
This, I believe, gives the clue to the origin of the Linnaean 
specimen. We know that Osbeck, who was in Canton in 1751, 
on his return to Sweden in 1752 gave Linnaeus a complete 
set of his collection (“ Pastor Osbeck gave me one of every species 
he found in China and Java’”).§ We further find in Oshbeck’s 
“Voyage to China and the East Indies,” vol. i., p. 346, this 
passage: “Among the hay which was given to our cow in the 
* Munro in Journ. Linn. Soc., vol. vi. (1862) pp 46, 48. - 
+ Parkinson, Theatrum Botanicum (1640). 
{ Munro in Journ. Linn. Soc., vol. vi. (1862), p. 52. 
§ B. D. Jackson in Progeed. Linn. Soc., Sess. 1887-88, p. 21. 
