C 444 ] 
whether it does not anfwer exactly to the genus of 
Rhus $ and whether the flowers are not male and 
female in themfelves, that is, hermaphrodites, on 
the fame tree. The original of Kcempfer is as fol- 
lows, p. 791 of his Amcenitates : “ Flojculos conti- 
<c nent pumilos, et citra coriandri feminis magni- 
,l tudinem radiantes, in luteum herbaceos, pentape- 
“ talos, petalis carnofis nonnihil oblongis et repan- 
<c dis, ftaminibus ad petalorum interftitia fingulis r 
u apicatis, breviflimk, ftylo perbrevi tricipite, floris 
“ turbini infidente ; frucftus flofculum excipit gib- 
4C bofus utcunquc in rhomboides flguram.- conv 
“ preffus.” Whereas Dr. Dillenius, and the authors 
that have copied after him, fay, that his Toxicoden- 
dron has the male blofloms on one plant, and the 
female on the other ; from whence it muft evidently 
be another genus. 
It appears, however, that Dr. Dillenius was not 
altogether ignorant of this difference of genus in 
thefe two plants ; but, rather than his Toxicoden- 
dron, which he had made agree exactly in the leaves, 
fhould not agree in the fructification, he makes the 
accurate Kcempfer guilty of an unpardonable over- 
iight, in not taking notice of the difference of the 
fexes of this varnifh-tree in different plants : whereas 
we have juft now fhewn, that nothing can be more 
minutely and judicioufly defcribed, than he has done 
both the male and female parts of the bloffom, 
which change into the fruit on the fame plant. 
The original of Dr. Dillenius’s remarks on Dr. 
Kcempfer’ s lpecimen runs thus: “ Planta licca, qua; 
‘ c in Japonia le<fta, fervatur in phytophylacio Sherar- 
a dino, noftrae huic fpecie examuflim quadrat, id 
“ tantum 
