[ + 4-5 ]. 
<c tantum ferns nempe differentia praetervifa fuit auc- 
tc tori.” Hence we find how this error came to- 
fpread, and this falfe fynonym to be adopted by the 
botanic writers, who copied after Dillenius. 
This fliews us what little dependance we can have 
upon the refult of that meeting, which Mr. Miller 
mentions he had with his botanic friends ; where,, 
from the fimilitude of leaves only, without the parts 
of fructification, they determined thefe two plants, 
fo different in their growth, to be one and the fame 
plant. 
Mr. Miller remarks very juflly, that the leaves of 
the fame tree often vary much in fhape, fuch as 
thofe of the poplar, fallow, &c. 
But in anfwer to this, we may reafonably fuppofe,, 
that Dr, Kaempfer, who was on the fpot, would not 
choofe for his fpecimens leaves of the mofl uncom- 
mon forts that were on the tree, and negleCt the- 
mofl common. This would be carrying the fup- 
pofition farther than can be allowed, unlefs we fup- 
pofe this author had not the underflanding even of 
a common gardener ; for otherwife, I am perfuaded, 
Sir Hans Sloane would not have thought his fpeci- 
mens worth purchafing. 
For another fynonym to the true Japan varnifh- 
tree, as alfo to Dillenius’s pennated Toxicodendron, 
with rhomboidal fruit, Mr. Miller brings in (in his 
anfwer to the Abbe Mazeass letter) the Bahama 
Toxicodendron joiiis alatis fructu purpureo pyriformi 
fparfo of Catefby’s Nat. Hifl. vol. i. p. 4,0.. fo that he 
would have all thefe three different plants one and the 
fame: and, in his reply to my letter, he ftill infills on 
it, that thefe two Toxicodendrons are the fame. But 
5 here. 
