C 8 75 ] 
lection, as mentioned by Dr. Dillenius ; but that 
they have one of the Fafi-no-ki, or fpurious Varnifh- 
tree of Kaempfer, with the fynonym, “ Toxicoden- 
“ dron foliis alatis frufta rhomboide, Ho't.Eltham 
infcribed under, a from Japan and that it refe ru- 
bles much our American one. So that Mr. Miller’s 
obfervations on his Toxicodendron, or Poifon afh, 
may be proper in the iixth ed t : on of his Dictionary, 
but not in h s letter above-mentioned, where he 
makes -the fpurious Varnifh-tree of Japan, cr Fad- 
no-ki, the fame with the Nankin Varnifh-tree, 
of which the Jefuits of China lent the feed over to 
the Royal Society a few years ago : whereas they are 
utterly unlike each other. Dr. Dillenius was per- 
haps led into this error by depending on the report 
made to Dr. Kaempfer on the common people of 
Japan ; which was, that the true Varnifh-tree de- 
generated into the fpurious one for w< nt of culture. 
Put I believe our knowlege in this fcience is fo 
much improved, that fuch dodtrines are not eafilv 
admitted among our gardeners (whatever varieties 
may poffibly arife from feed) j and in this I am 
perfuaded Mr. Miller will agree with me, that the 
two forts of Varnifh-trees, mentioned by Dr. Kaemp- 
fer, are two did: inch fpecies' of Rhus, or Toxicoden- 
dron, and will ever remain fo, let the foil be either 
good or bad that they are planted in. I am, 
Dear Sir, 
Your affectionate humble fervant, 
John Ellis. 
Lawrence Lane, 
Nov. 8, 1756. 
P. s. 
