172 
TITE JOURNAL OF BOTANY 
we have in the Department are the details, beautifully drawn by 
William Hooker, for the plate of P. sinensis ; the figure of the 
plant, however, is not among them. 
With regard to the nomenclature of the plant, I had in my 
previous note indicated that there is no need for special pleading in 
order to retain the use of P. sinensis. “As a matter of fact,” to 
quote what I had written, “ it is the earlier name, as part ii. of 
Lindley’s Collectanea , in which it occurs, was published on April 1, 
1821, while preenitens Ker (Bot. Reg. t. 339) dates from the 1st of 
May of the same year.” The name sinensis was then already in 
actual use, as Ker says it was “ mentioned to him by Mr. Sabine 
it may be noted that Bindley quotes the name as of “ Sabine MSS.” 
but rejected it on the ground that there was a Primula sinensis 
of Loureiro, which, whatever it may have been, was certainly not a 
Primula. 
I take this opportunity of calling attention to the MSS. of 
Robert Brown, which, like those of Solander and Dryander known as 
the “ Solander MSS.,” are in the Department of Botany. Some 
account of the latter, which are bound and indexed, will be found in 
“ The History of Alton’s Hortus Kewensis ,” published as a Supple¬ 
ment to this Journal for 1912 and also issued separately; the Brown 
MSS. are in Solander cases, and are arranged in the natural orders. 
Both collections often throw considerable light upon the Banksian 
Herbarium with which the writers were so intimately associated. 
SANDORICUM KOETJAPE AND DENDROBIUM CANINUM. 
By Elmer D. Merrill 
v 
(Director and Botanist, Bureau of Science, Manila). 
In this Journal for 1922 (lx. 273) Mr. Ridley takes exception to 
the application of these two specific names. In one case he is in 
error, in the other he is correct. 
In reference to the application of the name Sancloricum koetjape 
(Bunn, f.) Merr., which Mr. Ridley thinks belongs to S. nervosum 
Blume rather than to S. indicum Cav., Dr. Hochreutiner writes 
under date of January 3, 1923, that the type of Melia koetjape 
Burin f. still exists in the Delessert Herbarium ; that it is San- 
doricum indicum Cav. ; and that, therefore, Burman’s specific name 
should stand for this species. The use of a local name is not always 
a safe guide; in this connexion Dr. J. J. Smith of Buitenzorg writes 
under date of February 7, 1923, to the effect that ketjapi and 
sentoel are currently used in western Java, but that confusion may 
occur for the reason that without fruits it is often impossible, espe¬ 
cially in the herbarium, to separate the two forms. In ketjapi the 
fruit is sweet and edible, while in sentoel the fruit is larger, more 
distinctly ribbed, sour, and is not eaten by the natives ; in typical 
sentoel the leaves are often larger and the inflorescences are longer 
and more robust; and in sentoel the old leaves turn red before falling, 
and the wood is dark red, while in ketjapi the leaves turn yellow and 
