C 433 ] 
with Kcempfer’s figure and defcription of his true 
varnifh-tree, but Mr. Ellis. 
And now give ms leave to examine his reafons for 
differing in opinion from every late botanifl, who 
has mentioned this fhrub. 
He fays, that the midrib, which fupports the lobe 
leaves, is quite fmooth in the poifon-afh, as is alfo 
the under fide of the leaves ; whereas Dr. Koempfer, 
in his defcription of the midrib of the true varnifh- 
tree, calls it laviter lanuginofo ; and in his defcrip- 
tion of the lobes or pinna he fays, they are baji ine~ 
qualiter rotunda ; whereas thofe of the poifon-afh 
come to a point at their footftalks * nearly equal to 
that at the top. Thefe charadters, Mr. Ellis thinks, 
are fufficient to prove, that they are different plants : 
and he blames Dr. Dillenius for having omitted thefe 
neceffary charadters in his defcription of it ; and 
fuppofes this mufl have mifled the accurate Linnaeus, 
who quotes his fynonyma. 
But as Dr. Linnaeus is poffeffed of Kcempfer’ s 
book, he would little have deferved the appellation 
of accurate in this particular, had he not confulted 
the original, but trufled to a copy. But this I know 
he has done, and is as well affured, that the plants 
in queflion are the fame, as Mr. Ellis can be of the 
contrary. 
But here I mufl obferve, that the branch, from 
which Dr. Kcempfer’s figure is taken, is produced 
from the lower part of a flem, which feems to have 
been cut down, and not from a flowering branch ; 
and it is not improbable, that his defcription may 
have been taken from the fame branch : and if this 
be the cafe, it is eafy to account for the minute dif- 
V o -L. 50. K k k ferences 
