196 
with the source of commercial Patchouli ; the second [K.B. 1888, 
p. 133] and third [K.B. 1889, p. 135] are chiefly concerned with 
the cultivation of the plant and the trade in Patchouli ; the latest 
[K.B. 1902, p. 11] discusses the identity and range of distribution of 
another plant, Microtoena cymosa, Prain, which has the same odour 
as the Patchouli of commerce. 
In the first of these notices of Patchouli is given the text of a 
letter [K.B. 1888, p. 73] addressed by Kew to the Government of India 
on 30th January, 1888, in which the information then available and 
the points still requiring elucidation are clearly and precisely put. 
As the letter states the true Patchouli plant is free from ambiguity ; 
it is the Pogostemon Patchouli described and figured by Sir William 
Hooker in the Kew Journal of Botany, vol. i., p. 328, t. 11, from 
cultivated specimens. This stands in the Flora of British India, vol. iv., 
p. 634, as P. Patchouli , var. suavis. The letter further records an 
opinion expressed by Professor D. Oliver that it is doubtful whether 
this particular form, which is the economic plant of commerce, be 
indigenous in any part of India. This opinion has, since 1888, been 
fully confirmed. The economic Patchouli plant, which is abundantly 
cultivated in the Straits Settlements, almost exclusively by Chinese 
immigrants, is an exotic so far as India is concerned. The plant occurs 
in the chief Botanic Gardens in India and Ceylon, but in private 
gardens, whether native or European, it is practically unknown. It 
was introduced to the Royal Botanic Garden at Calcutta is 1834, when 
Dr. Wallich received plants from Mr. G. Porter, then in charge of the 
Botanic Garden at Penang. At Calcutta the plant has never flowered, 
though descendants of the original plants, vegetatively propagated, still 
exist and thrive there. It has never flowered in the Botanic Garden 
at Saharanpur, where it was introduced from Calcutta. At the Royal 
Botanic Garden, Peradeniya, Dr. Trimen informed the writer it had 
not flowered during his directorship, and there was no record of its 
having flowered before his arrival in Ceylon. At Singapore, accoiding 
to Mr. Hullett, no one had ever heard of its flowering ; the evidence 
adduced by Mr. Wray [K.B. 1889, p. 136] points to its never having 
flowered at Penang or in Perak during the preceding 30 years. There 
are specimens at Kew which show that this plant is, or has been in 
cultivation in Java and in Mauritius ; in these islands also it appears 
never to flower. But there is no definite record of its cultivation on 
a commercial scale anywhere save in Penang and Perak. 
There was no evidence in the Kew Herbarium in 1888, and there 
still is none, of the existence of any form of Pogostemon Patchouli, 
scented or scentless, in the Khasia or Assam region. The same was 
then and still is true of the Calcutta Herbarium. But the same is still 
true, as regards both Herbaria, of China, so that the additional sugges- 
tion made in 1888 by Professor Oliver, that the Patchouli plant of 
commerce may have originated in China, still lacks confirmation. Such 
a suggestion, seeing that the Patchouli plant of commerce is cultivated 
by the Chinese in the Straits Settlements, was certainly an extremely 
natural one to make. It now seems unlikely, however, that it may 
ever be confirmed. Not only has no Pogostemon with the Patchouli 
odour been reported from China ; we are now aware that, though 
