C 436 ] 
Here I think Mr. Ellis is a little too hafly in giving 
his opinion, as he has not feen this plant in the date, 
that the branch was,, from which Kcempfer’s figure 
was taken. For as there are often fuch apparent 
differences between the leaves on the lower branches 
of trees, and thofe which are at their extremities, as 
that in the defcriptive titles of the fpecies Dr. Lin- 
nreus frequently ufes them to diftinguifh one from 
another; fo in making the fame allowance. for thei 
plant in queftion, I cannot help thinking that I am 
in the right, and muff abide by my opinion, till the 
plants, which have been raifed from Father D’ln- 
carville’s feeds, have flowered, to convince me of 
the contrary. 
However, I cannot help obferving, that Mr. Ellis 
has given a title to this flhrub before he had feen any. 
of the characters, which are necefiary to determine 
the genus. And I have pretty good reafbn to believe 
it fhould not be joined to the Rhus ; for the three 
feeds, which I received from . the Royal . Society* 
were fhaped like a wedge, being , thicker on one 
edge than the other, and not unlike thofe of the 
beech-tree, as I. noted in my catalogue when I flowed 
them.; and, by their ftruCture, feemed as if the 
three feeds had been inclofed in the fame capflule. 
If it proves fo, this will by no means agree with 
the characters of Rhus ; efpecially if the male flow- 
ers fhould grow upon different plants from the fruit, 
which is what I fufpeCt. Nor can I agree with Dr; 
Linnaeus in this particular of joining all the fpecies of 
Toxicodendron to the genus of Rhus, many of 
which have their male flowers growing upon diffe- 
rent plants from the fruit ; and therefore would 
more 
