300 
ON  THE  SOURCE  OF  BALSAM  OF  PERU. 
the  same  plant,  we  are  brought  to  the  point  of  considering  with 
which  of  them  is  the  plant  of  Pereira,  identical,  or  is  it  a  distinct 
species. 
By  Pereira's  account,  the  specimen  in  the  Linnaean  Herba- 
rium, in  London,  is  imperfect.  We  know  how  that  Herbarium 
was  obtained,  after  the  elder  Linnaeus'  death,  by  Sir  J.  E.  Smith, 
who  states  in  his  article  that  Mutis  sent  leaves,  flowers  and  fruit, 
to  the  younger  Linnaeus,  from  which  his  description  in  the  Sup- 
plement was  made  out  and  published  in  1781.  It  is  reasonable 
to  suppose  that  Willdenow  knew  something  about  the  plant  of 
the  Supplement.  In  his  fourth  edition  of  the  Species  Plantarum, 
1799,  there  is  given  a  more  elaborate  description  of  it  than  is 
usually  found  in  his  work,  at  the  same  time  separating  it  from 
the  M,  frutescens  and  M.  pediceUatum.    It  is  as  follows  : 
"  Arbor  pulcherima,  costice  laeva  crasso  valde  resinoso,  ut 
omnes  arboris  partes.  Folia  alterna  abrupte  pinnata.  Foliola 
bijuga,  subopposita,  petiolata,  ovalo-lanceolata,  apice  pro  duct  o  ob- 
tuso  emarginato,  iiitegra,  venosa,  glaberrima.  Rachis  per  longi- 
tudinem  inferioris  paginae  folii  currens  elevata  pubeseens.  Peti- 
olus  communis  teres  pubeseens.  Racemi  axillares  erecti  secundi, 
foliis  longiores  pedunculo  teretiusculo  pubescente,  floribus  sparsis. 
Bractea  singulum  pedunculum  suffulciens  minima  ovata  erecta 
eoncava,  nudo  oculo  tuberculum  referens.  Pedicilli  erecti.  Ca- 
lyx campanulatus  viridi  canescens,  cinctus  extra  orificium  petalis 
antherisque  albis,  intra  continens  legumen  viride,  quod  in  flore 
singularem  faciem  repraesentat.  Foliorum  substantia  plena 
punctis  linearibus  translucentibus  resinosis,  ut  folia  citri." 
With  this  description  before  us,  we  think  that  Dr.-  Pereira's 
account  of  the  plant  in  his  possession,  and  the  completion  of 
this  account  from  the  specimen  in  our  own,  only  form  a  more 
extensive  and  more  minute  detail  of  the  characteristics  exhibited 
by  the  same  plant,  and  therefore  the  conclusion  follows  that  we 
both  have  had  submitted  anew  to  us  the  Mutis-Linnaean  plant, 
of  which  the  specific  name  has  not  been  disturbed,  and  which  is 
now  the  Myrospermum  Peruiferum,  D.  C. 
Pereira  informs  us  that  the  leaflets  of  the  M.  Peruiferum,  Linn., 
are  smaller  than  those  of  his  own  specimen ;  "  in  shape  they  are 
not  very  essentially  different."  From  the  drawing  they  were 
five  in  number,  and  the  figure  presented  for  the  sake  of  com- 
