INTO THE FLORA OF CHINA, 45 
however, that he copied from Petiver and Plukenet. I have 
seen the Hist, plant, but had then no opportunity of comparing 
it with the Amaltheum and Petiver’s works. As appears from 
Petiver’s statements, C. had given also to Sloane some of his 
specimens. 
On the whole, nearly 600 Chinese plants have been 
described by Petiver and Plukenet from Cunningham’s 
specimens. It would be interesting to know what has become 
of this herbarium. Petiver’s botanical collections as well as 
those of Plukenet had been acquired by Sloane and were 
finally incorporated into the British Museum, where they may 
still exist, or at least some “rudera” of them. 
After Cunningham, botanical collections have been made 
twice at Chusan, as far as I know. Dr. Th, Cantor visited 
the island in 1840 and in an account of Cantor’s botanical 
collections in the Journ. As. Soc. Beng. XXIII. 1854, Mr. 
Griffith enumerates 133 plants gathered at Chusan, but he 
gives generally nothing more but the genus names. There is 
only one plant of the collection he describes as new, viz. 
Actinostemma tenerum. I am not aware whether Cantor’s her- 
barium is now in England or in India. 
The well known traveller and botanical collector R. Fortune 
(who died in April 1880) investigated the Flora of Chusan 
some years later. He first came to that island in 1843 and 
visited it again in 1850. His plants, distributed by the R. 
Hort. Soc., are found in all the more important herbarium’s 
of Europe. It seems that only a small part of Fortune’s 
Chinese plants have been described. 
Concerning the Crocodile islands (Dogs islands near Fu 
chou) where Cunningham gathered some specimens, the 
botanical features of these islands are probably the same as 
those of the adjacent mainland. The Flora of that part of 
China, and I must say the same with respect to Amoy, is very 
imperfectly known. But all plants gathered at those places 
may, I believe, be found in Dr. Hance’s magnificent herbarium, 
and lie is probably the only botanist who would be able to 
identify Cunningham’s plants from the ancient descriptions 
and drawings left. 
A great part of Cunningham’s plants, described and depicted 
by Petiver and Plukenet, are probably included in the later 
collections alluded to. I therefore have thought it would 
be useful to bring under the notice of modern botanists 
and to place together the scattered remarks and diagnoses 
referring to Cunningham’s plants, as found in the Amaltheurri 
