dia and Centralasia. Regarding these plants 
and other foreign plants, the Chinese have 
often tried to render the foreign name by 
Chinese sounds, especially the Sanscrit 
fan ) name. F. i. the So -In is the 
Shorea robnsta, in Sanscrit Sal or Saul , a 
tree native of India. Buddha is said to be 
dead under a Sal tree. For this reason the 
tree is also called jjjj] ippi T'ien-shi-li 
(Chestnut of the heavenly praeeeptor). Pen- 
ts‘ao XXIX 30. As there are in Peking no 
Sal trees, the Buddhist priests in the temples 
adore under the name of So-lo-shu, a splen- 
did Northern tree, the Aeseulus Chinensis (A. 
turbinata) which thrives also in Japan. — The 
Sanscrit name of Sandalwood (Santalum al- 
bum) dshandana is rendered in the Pen-ts k ao 
(XXXI V 35.) by the sounds Chan- 
tan. The common Chinese name is 
T'an-siang . — The Jaekfruit, Artocarpws in- 
tegrifol, in Sanscrit paramita is called 
J||| Po-lo-mi in Chinese.— A Chinese 
name for Saffron ( Ziaferan in Persian) is 
tU ^ j|[5 Sa-fa-lang * (Pen-tsao XT 
4-2). 
On the whole it can be said of the Pen- 
ts‘ao, that the descriptions of plants therein 
are very unsatisfactory. We find statements 
of the native country, of the form, the colour 
®f the blossoms, the time of blooming &c. 
These accounts are insufficient, because the 
Chinese in describing the parts of plants, 
have not a botanical terminology, but the 
blossoms, leaves, fruits &c., are described, in 
comparing them with the blossoms, leaves 
and fruits of other plants, which are often 
unknown to the reader. Besides these men- 
tioned, there are also statements given about 
the utility of the plants for economical and 
industrial purposes. The descriptions con- 
sist for the most part of successive quotations 
of authors, whereby the same statements are 
several times repeated. Finally Li-shi-chen 
gives also his own opinion and generally it is 
the most reasonable one of all, A great many 
are accompanied with woodcuts, but these 
are so rude, that very seldom can any con- 
clusion be drawn from them. 
About the close of the Ming appeared an- 
other botanical work 
HU 
Kun- 
fang-pu , herbarium in 30 books, compiled 
by \ 
23; 
m 
Wang-siang- tsHn . 
A eon- 
* I must here correct my former statement (Notes 
and Queries IV p. 55.), that yii kin siang may be 
the Saffron. 
sid'erably enlarged edition was published in? 
1708 with the title U J|J ^3 fff Kl iang~ 
kiln-fang -pu in 100 books. It seems to be 
copied for the most part from the I’en-ts‘ao, 
but there is also much new information 
drawn from ancient and more recent authors. 
The work has no illustrations, but its great 
superiority lies in the splendid type. The 
Pfin-ts‘ao is often inconvenient for reference, 
the paper and the impression being bad and 
the misprints numerous. 
A review of the cultivated plants is also 1 
to be found in the {Jqp q[|j shou- 
slri-tung-Pao , an excellent work on agricul- 
ture, horticulture and the various industrial 
sciences, issued by order of the Emperor' 
in 1742, in 78 books. The drawings are 
tolerably good. Our Sinologues have often 
made translations from this work. 
The last treatise on Chinese botany, of 
any note, issued in 1848 is the 
chi-wu-ming-shi-tu-Pao 
by 
The work 
'4^ wu-ki-sun , a native of Honan., 
was written in Tai-yiian-fu ire 
Shan-si and revised by Jffl lu- 
ying-ku, a native of Yunnan. It contains 
60 chapters. The one half of the work 
consists of a description (for the most part 
very confused) of the plants now known to* 
the Chinese. The printing is very distinct. 
The other half includes nearly 1 800 care- 
fully executed drawings. Although here - 
also many mistakes occur, this work is in- 
comparably the best pictorial work of the 
Chinese of this class. The price at Peking 
is about $14. 
These are about the most remarkable Chi- 
nese botanical works, and which render un- 
necessary, reference to the numerous other' 
works in this department. 
I have announced at the outset of this ar- 
ticle my intention to treat of the value of 
Chinese botanical works. Judging from the 
above remarks some may suppose, that 1 in- 
tend to deny all scientific value to their 
works. It is true, the Chinese possess very 
little talent for observation and zeal for 
truth, the principal conditions for the natu- 
ralist. The Chinese style is inaccurate and 1 
often ambigious. In addition to this the 
Chinese have an inclination to the marvel- 
ous and their opinions are often very puer- 
ile. None of the Chinese treatises can be 
compared with the admirable works of the 
ancient Romans and Greeks, Plinius, Dios - 
corides (both in the first century) &c. 
Nevertheless the Chinese works on natural 
science are very interesting, not only for 
sinologues, but also for our European natu- 
