196 



with the source of commercial Patchouli ; the second [K.B. 1888, 

 p. 133] and third [K.B. 1889, p. 135] are chiefly concerned with 

 the cultivation of the plant and the trade in Patchouli ; the latest 

 [K.B. 1902, p. 11] discusses the identity and range of distribution of 

 another plant, Microtoena cymosa, Prain, which has the same odour 

 as the Patchouli of commerce. 



In the first of these notices of Patchouli is given the text of a 

 letter [K.B. 1888, p. 73] addressed by Kew to the Government of India 

 on 30th January, 1888, in which the information then available and 

 the points still requiring elucidation are clearly and precisely put. 



As the letter states the true Patchouli plant is free from ambiguity ; 

 it is the Pogostemon Patchouli described and figured by Sir William 

 Hooker in the Kew Journal of Botany, vol, i., p. 328, t. 11, from 

 cultivated specimens. This stands in the Flora of British India, vol. iv., 

 p. 634, as P. Patchouli, var. mavis. The letter further records an 

 opinion expressed by Professor D. Oliver that it is doubtful whether 

 this particular form, which is the economic plant of commerce, be 

 indigenous in any part of India. This opinion has, since 1888, been 

 fully confirmed. The economic Patchouli plant, which is abundantly 

 cultivated in the Straits Settlements, almost exclusively by Chinese 

 immigrants, is an exotic so far as India is concerned. The plant occurs 

 in the chief Botanic Gardens in India and Ceylon, but in private 

 gardens, whether native or European, it is practically unknown. It 

 was introduced to the Eoyal Botanic Garden at Calcutta is 1834, when 

 Dr. Wallich received plants from Mr. G. Porter, then in charge of the 

 Botanic Garden at Penang. At Calcutta the plant has never flowered, 

 though descendants of the original plants, vegetatively propagated, still 

 exist and thrive there. It has never flowered in the Botanic Garden 

 at Saharanpur, where it was introduced from Calcutta. At the Eoyal 

 Botanic Garden, Peradeniya, Dr. Trimen informed the writer it had 

 not flowered during his directorship, and there was no record of its 

 having flowered before his arrival in Ceylon. At Singapore, according 

 to Mr. Hullett, no one had ever heard of its flowering ; the evidence 

 adduced by Mr. Wray [K.B. 1889, p. 136] points to its never having 

 flowered at Penang or in Perak during the preceding 30 years. There 

 are specimens at Kew which show that this plant is, or has been in 

 cultivation in Java and in Mauritius ; in these islands also it appears 

 never to flower. But there is no definite record of its cultivation on 

 a commercial scale anywhere save in Penang and Perak. 



There was no evidence in the Kew Herbarium in 1888, and there 

 still is none, of the existence of any form of Pogostemon Patchouli, 

 scented or scentless, in the Khasia or Assam region. The same was 

 then and still is true of the Calcutta Herbarium. But the same is still 

 true, as regards both Herbaria, of China, so that the additional sugges- 

 tion made in 1888 by Professor Oliver, that the Patchouli plant of 

 commerce may have originated in China, still lacks confirmation. Such 

 a suggestion, seeing that the Patchouli plant of commerce is cultivated 

 by the Chinese in the Straits Settlements, was certainly an extremely 

 natural one to make. It now seems unlikely, however, that it may 

 ever be confirmed. Not only has no Pogostemon with the Patchouli 

 odour been reported from China ; we are now aware that, though 



