& S}0 ft 
evidence. There oan usually be no absolute incontrovertible 
proof in the absence of a herbarium specimen but if, the evi¬ 
dence being considerable (i.e. if the description is more 
than a brief statement equally applicable to more than one 
f-»v 
known plant) and having be4^ ►weighed critically, the plant 
the botanist is trying to identify with the description cannot, 
as it were, establish an alibi, he would be justified in 
convicting. If the botanist does not observe these con¬ 
ditions - is non-critical and ignores alibi - or if fresh 
» 
evidence has been produced, we are entitled, on behalf of the 
convicted plant, to claim a retrial. 
In the case of the plant interpreted as p, malaa - 
nonan Merrill has ignored the alibi. The fruits of Blanco's 
Mqcanera malaanonan had wingsk only 3 in. long and a persistent 
3- partite stigma - characters which do not apply to P, malaa - 
ncnan Menu Therefore I think it quite legitimate to give 
r ■ 
the plant a retrial. having carried this out my judgement 
is something like this - "The accused (p. malaanonan Merr. ) is 
suspiciously like Mocanera malaanonan and Merrill may con¬ 
ceivably be correct in saying it is the same thing. But he 
has violated the traditions of British justice by ignoring 
cerGain evidence which establishes an alibi. X aught to 
reverse his judgement but, being very anxious not to undermine 
the authority of the courts, and having no wish to vex Mr. 
Justice Merrill who is such a nice old chap and anyway might 
die of a heart attack any moment,! am going to uphold his 
judgement. But I, of course, am a very soft-hearted, and 
X 
therefore bad, judge. 
Shall write about Dacrydi um later and just 
V* OO ft 1 TrAi i in a « 
