258 
TIIE JOURNAL OF BOTANY 
for we have among Brown’s MSS. the original of the description 
published in Bot. Reg., prepared for press by Bindley and with an 
addition in his hand; from this MS. it is apparent that the only 
material in Brown’s possession at that period was that collected by 
Banks and Solander, supplemented possibly—though of this there is 
no evidence—by Solander’s MS. description to which Lindley refers. 
In this latter the pod and seeds are fully described, apparently from 
observations made at the time of collecting, as the specimens in the 
Herbarium have no fruit; the description in what are known as the 
Solander MSS. (xx. p. 83) was drawn up by Solander from the 
notes actually made by him during the voyage, are also in the 
Department of Botany ; they will be found in vol. i. pp. 36, 178, 185, 
under the name Genista compressa , by which Solander described the 
plant. An interesting note by Solander as to the reproduction of 
C. australis that has not hitherto been reproduced, and which I do 
not find mentioned in any account of the species runs:—“ Obs. Rami 
interdum ad eorum exsertioneni radioant absque contactu vel cum 
terra vel cum aliis plantis, novasque exserunt plantas.” Another note 
says: “ Plantse omnes foliigera juniores fuerunt, earumque rami 
valde coinpresd, ,'ubfoliaceae.” 
Besides the Banks and Solander specimens, we have (N. Zealand 
Plants, i. t. 37) the original sketch of the plant taken by Sydney 
Parkinson during the voyage, with the finished drawing made on his 
return and an impression of the (unpublished) copper plate prepared 
from the latter; the drawing gives the fruit, as to which there is a 
note on the sketch—“the capsule dirty brown, the seeds orange 
colour’d”—and branches with leaves and fully expanded flowers, thus 
supplementing the rather poor herbarium specimens which show only 
immature flowers, no fruit, and small leaves. I do not know on what 
material Brown based his description, but am inclined to think it 
must have been from Banksian specimens in his own herbarium, 
although these were not found when his collections were incorporated 
in the Museum Herbarium. 
II. Lotus arboreus G. Forster. 
Although, as has already been shown, Brown’s description of 
C. australis included no reference to Forster’s plant, a sheet in the 
Museum Herbarium shows that he subsequently included) it under 
that species. This, from Brown’s herbarium, is labelled by him: 
“ Carmichselia [he always spelt the name thus] nob. Lotus arboreus 
Forst. prodr. ex herb. G. Forster apud D. Lambert.” To the sheet is 
attached a note, also in Brown’s hand : “ Lotus arboreus Forst. in 
H erb. Lambert a G. Forstero ipso cum nomine supradato prodr. 
Specimens, one with enlarged ovarium the corolla fallen: it has 
leaves which essentially agree with those of Sir J. Banks’s specimens. 
The ultimate branches are not plano-compressi [as Brown had described 
them] but somewhat or rather very deeply furrowed and much 
narrower than those of Sir J. B.’s specimens. The racemi are similar. 
There are two ramuli with fruit, one with 2, the other with 3, of 
which the valves have not fallen oft* but have begun to separate at 
