140 
different plant. The leaves belong to Haworthia arachnoidea, Duval, ` Pl. Suce. Hort. 
Alenconia,” p. 7 (1809) ; H. arachnoides, Haw., `` Synop.,” p. 96 (1812) ; Aloe arachnoidea, 
Miller, `` Gard. Dict.,” ed. 8, No. 17 (1768), as generally understood. 
The locality given by Thunberg is Karroo near Zwartkops Zoutpan, in Uitenhage 
Division. 
A. dichotoma, Thunb., ` Fl. Cap..” p. 309. 
The type specimen of this species consists of two short, longitudinal sections of the stem, 
one showing the very smooth bark and the other the interior fibre, and one leaf. It 
is the plant understood by this name, but the earliest publication of it is Aloe dichotoma, 
Masson in `` Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc.,” Lond. (1776), Vol. LX VI, Part I, p. 310, where the 
following description is given : `` We found a new species of Aloe here (Masson and Thunberg 
were then, on 2nd November, 1774, ascending the Bokkeveld Mountains), called by the 
Dutch Koker Boom, of which the Hottentots make quivers to hold their arrows; it being 
of a soft, fibrous consistence, which they can easily cut out, leaving only the bark, which is 
hard and durable. These trees were about 12 feet high, with a straight, smooth trunk, 
about 10 inches or a foot (in) diamater and 5 or 6 feet in length, which divided into two 
branches, and those were again sub-divided into two more branches, which terminated in 
a bunch of thick, succulent leaves surrounding the stem, spear-shaped, entire, without 
spines, and hanging down like the leaves of Dracaena draco. We did not see it in flower, 
but by the above characters took it for a new species, and called it Aloe dichotoma.” This 
name is usually quoted as having been given by Linnaeus fil., ` Suppl..” p. 206, but that 
work was not published until 1781. five years later than the publication of Masson’s 
description. which is also a far better one than that of the younger Linné. 
A. disticha, Thunb., `` Diss. Aloe,” p. 7 (1785), and ` Fl. Cap..” p. 311, not of Linnaeus. 
There are two sheets bearing this name, numbered | and 2. Both contain very good 
specimens of a new species of Gasteria, nearly allied to G. verrucosa, Haw., but differing 
from that species by the leaves being little more than half as broad at the base, with more 
parallel sides and more acute and somewhat spine-pointed at the apex, and with smaller 
and more prominent white tubercles than those of G. verrucosa. The following is a 
description of it : 
Gasteria Thunbergii, \.K. br. 
Leaves strictly two-ranked, 3-7 inches long, 6-8 lines broad just above the sheath, 
and of nearly equal width to about 6-9 lines below the tip, where they taper sharply into 
a fine spine-like point. The surface on both sides and the margins are very rough from 
being thickly covered with small, white, very prominent. tubercles. The flower-stems — 
are detached, but probably belong to the leaves; they are about 18 inches long, but were 
evidently longer, and are unbranched, 23 lines thick. Flowers 7-9 lines apart. Bracts 
3—4 lines long, reflexed, deltoid, acuminate, membranous. Pedicels 6-8 lines long, reflexed. 
Perianth (above its articulation with the pedicel) 11 lines long, curved, inflated at the 
lower part. 
Thunberg does not give the locality of this species. 
A. humilis, Thunb., © Diss. Aloe.” p. 6 (1785), and ` Fl. Cap..” p. 311. 
This is A. humilis, Miller. * Abr. Gard. Dict..” ed. 6, No. 10 (1771). 
The specimen consists of a small tuft of leaves and two good flowering stems. . The 
sheet is labelled on the back as being from a plant cultivated in the Botanic Garden at 
Upsala. | 
A. lingua, Thunb., ` Diss. Aloe,” p. 8 (1785), and “ Fl. Cap.,” p. 312. 
This is A. plicatilis, Miller, ` Gard. Dict.,” ed. 8. No, 7 (1768); A. linguaeformis, 
Linn, f., ` Suppl.,” p. 206 (1781), not of Miller. ; 
