212 Historical. 



S. Fahlberg between 1785 and 1834. 



I only saw Fahlberg mentioned by 0. Swartz in his Flora Indiae 



occidentalis with ]-eference to a few plants from St. Barthe- 



lemy. 



(Herb. Swartz. Stockholm; herb. Thunberg Upsala). 



Placide BucJiassaing de Fontbressis about 1848. 



P. D. de Fontbressis collected only a few plants in St. Eustatius; 



I saw the following mentioned in Grisebach : Systematische Unter- 



suchungen ilber die Vegetation der Karaiben, insbesondere der 



Insel Guadeloupe: 



no. 16. Lepidium virginicum Linn. 



no. 22. Polanisia viscosa DC. 



no. 24. Capparis cynophallophora Linn, r attenuata. 



no. 162. Sida spinosa Linn. 



no. 286. Tribulus maximus Linn. (Kallstroemia maxima Wight 



et Arn.). 

 no. 386. Stylosanthes procumbens Sw. (Stylosanthes hamata Tau- 



bert). 

 no. 942. Cyphiacanthus barbadensis Ns. (Ruellia tuberosa Linn.), 

 no. 1047. Heliophytum indicum DC. (Heliotropium mdicum Linn.), 

 no. 1074. Lantana camara Linn, 

 no. 1076. Lantana involucrata Linn. 

 (Herb. Gottingen). 



B. A. Fuphrasen 1788. 



B. A. Euphrasen in his: Beskrifning ofver Svenska vestindiska 

 on St. Barthelemi samt oarne St. Eustache och St. Christopher. 

 Stockholm 1798, makes also mention of a few plants from St. 

 Eustatius. I did not think it necessary to quote them here as, 

 according to the statement of Urban (Symbolae Antillanae I 

 p. 49) it is impossible to control the determination of Euphrasen. 



F. L. VHerminier 1815. 



M. D. Feenstra about 183(). 



The few botanical data I could take from his: De Nederlandsche 

 West-indische eilanden in derzelver tegenwoordigen toestand, Am- 

 sterdam, 1836—1887 are of no use to the Systematic Part. In des- 

 cribing the vegetation in the Third Part I shall say something 

 about this paper of Feenstra. 



