( 23 ) 
plants, occur in Japanese and Chinese books, 
they denote the same plant. But it is an 
error. It is true, the Japanese have bor- 
rowed from the Chinese their characters for 
names of plants. These Chinese characters 
in Japanese botanical writings have the same 
value as the Latin names of our botanists. 
There is generally also concordance between 
Japanese and Chinese plants. But as there 
are many Japanese plants, which do not 
occur in China, the Chinese characters for 
plants are often used in Japan to designate 
similar plants, or quite different ones. For 
instance: The character Feng denotes 
in China the Liquidambar formosana , accord- 
ing to Hoffmann and Sell, it is Acer trijidum. 
^Vj| Wen-po is in China a species of 
Crataegus, much used in sweet-meats in 
Peking, but Cydonia vulgaris in Japan. 
The jjj Shan-cha, Crataegus pinnati- 
fklain China H. and Sell, refer to C. Cuneaia. 
The name Hai-shi-liu for 
Camellia ja.ponica, according to H. and Sell., 
is, I think, not used in China. The Chinese 
call the Camellia like the Tea shrub Cha- 
fthu (v. s.) and they recognized earlier than 
our botanists (Benth im and Hooker, genera 
plant*) that the C; m Ilia and the Thea relate 
to the same genus. — II. and Sell, call the 
Aesmlus turbinata (the same as Aesc. chi- 
nensis) 5^ I^Ts‘i-ye-shu, (seven leav- 
ed tree), but as I have stated above this tree 
is known in Northern China under the name 
of Po-lo-shu. The name IVi-y e-shu does 
not occur in Chinese books. The gj 
Tsu-ts l ao of Chinese books is the Tourne- 
fortia Arguzina , the roots are used for dye- 
ing in red, in Northern China. H. and Sell, 
state that this name refers to Lithospermum. 
erythrorlnzon. — H. and Sch. in their list of 
plants enumerate a good number of plants, 
which grow only in Japan and therefore 
cannot have Chinese names. It is, I believe, 
not proved, that Illicium religiasum , the 
sacred plant of the Japanese, occurs in 
China (Bindley 1. c. mentions it only as a 
Japanese species) and the name 7 ^ 
Mang-ts i ao , which H. and Sch. attribute 
to 111. religiostun seems to denote an entirely 
different plant in Chinese books. See the 
drawing in the Ch. W. XXIV. 
Morrison in his Dictionary gives often 
also scientific names of Chinese plants, but 
generally they are wrongly adduced. Pru- 
* Tliea olim a Camellia characteribiis fallacibus dis- 
tincta, uuper limitibus certioribus definita, nempe 
staminibus interioribus liberis numero, petulis aequal- 
ibus nec dnplo pluribus, nobis pot ins pro sectiono 
liabenda, nam genus in integrum servatum ruagis 
» aturale videtur. 
dcnce is therefore necessary in the use of 
all the above mentioned statements, and we 
cannot “bona fide” adopt the determination 
of names of Chinese plants by our authors. 
The Chinese in their geographical state- 
ments generally enumerate plants, beasts and 
other products of the countries described. 
These accounts are often very important in 
enabling us to recognize, what country is 
meant. Our sinologues, from whom we 
cannot of course expect a knowledge of 
natural history, fall often into errors in quot- 
ing such wrong determinations of Chinese 
names of plants. 
M. Stan. Julien in his translation of the 
travels of Wang-yen te to the Oigours 
(981-983), Melanges do Geographic Asia ti quo 
p. 91, renders the name of a tree |;jyj 
Hu-t'-ung , which occurs in this narrative, 
by Volhameria japonic, a and Flu- 
sh im by Colutea arborea. I do not know 
from whence M. Stan. Julien has drawn this 
information. It can hardly be assumed, that 
Volkameria japonica grows in the Mongolian 
: desert. The tree Hu-t‘ung is said after rain 
to exude a kind of gum. It is also described 
in the Pen-tskio XXXIV (14, and represent- 
ed in the Ch. W. XXX V. . It is likewise 
very doubtful whether Ku-shcn is Colutea. 
Loureiro calls Robinia amara by this name. 
Many errors of this kind are also to be 
found in a work published in the year 1869 
by M. Stan. Julien and P. Champion under 
the name, Industries de I Empire Chinois. 
But these, mistakes are however to be as- 
cribed not to the great sinologue, but only 
to his collaborator, who made his studies in 
China. I may be allowed, to point out some 
of these misstatements. M. Champion in- 
forms us, that the Olive-tree (Oliva europ- 
aea) thrives in China (p. 120.) But our 
olives are not to be found here. The fruit, 
which bears this name in China is produced 
from Canarium pimela and C. album , trees 
of Southern China. The Chinese name is 
HI Kan-lan (P. XXXI b Ch. W. 
XXXI J* The jg Tsao-kie, (black 
pod, on account of the large black pods) is 
not Mimosa fera , as Champion states, but 
( xleditclhia sinensis, (P. XXXV" 4. Ch. W. 
XXXIII,) The j§| jjj IP Yen-fu-tsu is 
called by Champion, Nux Gallae tincto i me 
(P. 95). Mr. Champion meant here probably 
* But in China the Ole, a Fragrans is much cultiva- 
ted for its little fragrant blossoms, which appear in 
autumn. The common name is Kui-hua 
(cinnarnom-- flower.) A good drawing can he found in 
ihe Ch. \Y. XXXI -1 (|| 
