Philosophical transactions, Vol. L. Part I. For the year 1757. · Various
GENERAL PROPOSITION.
In my paper above-mentioned I likewise observed, that the seeds, which were sent to the Royal Society by Father D’Incarville, for those of the true varnish-tree, did not prove to be so; but the plants, which were raised from them, were taken to be referred to the spurious varnish-tree of Kœmpfer; which I believed to be the same, and own, that it is yet my opinion, notwithstanding what Mr. Ellis has said to the contrary: for the number of lobes or _pinnæ_ on each leaf, with their manner of arrangement on the midrib, are the same. And here we must observe, that the figure of this given by Kœmpfer is from a flowering branch; and every gardener or botanist must know, that the leaves, which are situated immediately below the flowers of most winged-leaved plants, have fewer lobes or _pinnæ_, than those on the lower branches: therefore I must suppose it to be the case in this plant; and from thence, with some other observations which I made on the seeds, I have asserted it to be the wild or spurious varnish-tree of Kœmpfer. But Mr. Ellis is of a contrary opinion, because the base of the lobes of those plants, which were raised from Father D’Incarville’s seeds, are rounded and indented like two ears. In Dr. Kœmpfer’s figure and description of the _fasi-no-ki_, the leaves are intire, and come to a point at their base.
Here I think Mr. Ellis is a little too hasty in giving his opinion, as he has not seen this plant in the state, that the branch was, from which Kœmpfer’s figure was taken. For as there are often such apparent differences between the leaves on the lower branches of trees, and those which are at their extremities, as that in the descriptive titles of the species Dr. Linnæus frequently uses them to distinguish one from another; so in making the same allowance for the plant in question, I cannot help thinking that I am in the right, and must abide by my opinion, till the plants, which have been raised from Father D’Incarville’s seeds, have flowered, to convince me of the contrary. However, I cannot help observing, that Mr. Ellis has given a title to this shrub before he had seen any of the characters, which are necessary to determine the genus. And I have pretty good reason to believe it should not be joined to the Rhus; for the three seeds, which I received from the Royal Society, were shaped like a wedge, being thicker on one edge than the other, and not unlike those of the beech-tree, as I noted in my catalogue when I sowed them; and, by their structure, seemed as if the three seeds had been inclosed in the same capsule.
If it proves so, this will by no means agree with the characters of Rhus; especially if the male flowers should grow upon different plants from the fruit, which is what I suspect. Nor can I agree with Dr. Linnæus in this particular of joining all the species of Toxicodendron to the genus of Rhus, many of which have their male flowers growing upon different plants from the fruit; and therefore would more properly come into his twenty-second class of _Dioecia_, than his fifth of _Pentandria_, into which he ranges the Rhus. At the bottom of the characters of that genus he has added a note, to shew the varnish-tree is so. But as there are several other species which agree in this essential character of distinction; so, according to the Linnæan system, they should be separated from the Rhus, with another generical title. Mr. Ellis observes, upon the poetical description, which he lays Kœmpfer has given of the leaves of the wild varnish-tree turning red in the autumn, that he had not found it to be the case of the tree growing in the stove at Busbridge. How it appeared in that situation, I know not; but the leaves of all those, which are growing in the Chelsea garden, and stand in the open air, do constantly change to a purple colour in the autumn, before they fall off from the shrub: but those of the true varnish-tree are much more remarkable for the deepness of their colour.
Mr. Ellis says, he had received a letter from Dr. Sibthorp, professor of botany at Oxford, in which the Doctor informs him, that there is no specimen of the true varnish-tree in the Sherardian collection at Oxford; but that there is one of _fasi-no-ki_, or spurious varnish-tree of Kœmpfer. How the Doctor could write so, I cannot conceive; for I am very sure there was no specimen of the latter in that collection while it remained in London, having myself often viewed that part of it: and sure I am, Dr. Dillenius never added that synonym to the former: and I do believe the latter was no other way known in Europe, than by Kœmpfer’s figure and description of it, excepting that specimen of Kœmpfer’s now in the British Museum. But, to confirm what I have before said, of Dr. Sherard’s having a specimen of the true varnish-tree, I beg leave to quote what Dr. Dillenius has written in the _Hortus Elthamensis_; where, after having described the American Toxicodendron, he says, _Ceterum historiam verniciferæ arboris Japoniæ, diligenter et accurate more suo exsequutus est laudatus Kœmpferius, cujus et descriptio et figura, quin et planta sicca, quæ in Japonia lecta servatur in phytophylacio Sherardino, nostræ huic speciei examussim quadrat: id tantum, sexus nempe differentia, prætervisa fuit auctori: quoniam autem ille liber non in omnium his in locis, multo minus in America, manibus versatur, non alienum videtur, si qui, quorum interest, hæc legerint, ut norint, quæ ille de collectione & preparatione vernicis illius habet, hoc loco transcribere._ Then he goes on transcribing from Kœmpfer the manner, in which it is collected.
After this, I find Mr. Ellis is inclinable to think, that the poison-ash, as it is called by the gardeners, is the same with the _fasi-no-ki_, or spurious varnish-tree of Kœmpfer. The difference between these shrubs does not consist in small and minute particulars, but the most obvious striking marks of distinction appear at first sight; for the poison-ash has rarely more than three or four pair of lobes to each leaf, terminated by an odd one: in which particular it agrees with the true varnish-tree of Kœmpfer; whereas in the figure, which Kœmpfer has given of the spurious varnish-tree, the leaves have seven or eight pair of lobes terminated by an odd one: and this figure, as I before observed, is drawn from a flowering branch. Every one, who is the least acquainted with these things, knows, that the leaves immediately below the flowers are considerably less than those on the lower part of the branches: therefore this is a more essential note of distinction than those mentioned by Mr. Ellis. I must also observe, that Mr. Ellis would suggest, that I supposed these two shrubs were only varieties of each other produced by culture: whereas it must appear to every one, who reads my paper, that my intention in mentioning the spurious varnish-tree was to shew it was different from Kœmpfer’s true varnish-tree, altho’ Kœmpfer supposes otherwise.
For the satisfaction of the curious, I have added a leaf of each shrub, which are now growing in the Chelsea garden, that if any person has the curiosity, they may compare them with Kœmpfer’s. In my paper I took notice, that one of the best kinds of varnish was collected from the Anacardium in Japan; and recommended it to the inhabitants of the British islands in America, to make trial of the occidental Anacardium, or Cashew-nut tree, which abounds in those islands. This has occasioned Mr. Ellis to take great pains to shew, that the eastern and western Anacardium were different trees: a fact, which was well known to every botanist before; and of which I could not be ignorant, having been possessed of both sorts near thirty years. But as I was assured, from many repeated experiments, that the milky juice, with which every part of the Cashew-tree abounds, would stain linen with as permanent a black as that of the oriental Anacardium; so I just hinted, that it was worth the trial. Nor was my hint grounded on those experiments only, but on the informations I had received from persons of the best credit, who had resided long in the American islands, that people are very careful to keep their linen at a distance from those trees, well knowing, that if a drop of the juice fell upon it, they could never wash out the stain.
But Mr. Ellis, in order to prove that this tree has no such quality of staining, says, he has made some experiments on the caustic oil, with which the shell or cover of the Cashew-nut abounds; and that he found it was not endued with any staining quality. But surely those experiments cannot be mentioned to prove, that the milky juice of the tree has not this property: and Sir Hans Sloane, in his History of Jamaica, says, that the inhabitants of Jamaica stain their cottons with the bark of the Cashew-tree. I shall not intrude farther on the patience of the gentlemen, who may be present when this paper is read; but humbly crave their pardon for detaining them so long: nor should I have given them this trouble, had not I thought my reputation concerned on the occasion. LVI. _An Answer to the preceding Remarks. By Mr._ John Ellis, _F.R.S._ [Read Jan. 19, 1758.] MY letter to Mr. Webb, which is printed in the second part of the xlixth volume of the Philosophical Transactions[209], was intended to shew this Honourable Society, that Mr. Miller, in his reply to the Abbé Mazeas’s letter, had brought no proofs to lessen the discovery, which he tells us the Abbé Sauvages had made, in attempting to improve the art of painting or staining linens and cottons of a fine durable black colour, by making use of the juice of the Carolina pennated Toxicodendron, instead of the common method of staining black with gauls and a preparation of iron; which, he says, always turns to a rusty colour when washed.
Mr. Miller, instead of producing the proper proofs, to shew that this method of staining cottons and linens of a black colour was known before, or quoteing the authors in which he says it is mentioned, contents himself with telling the Society, that this American Toxicodendron is the same plant with the true varnish-tree of Japan; and that callicuts are painted with the juice of this shrub. In my letter to Mr. Webb, I have endeavoured to shew, that notwithstanding the authority of Dr. Dillenius, and the authors that have followed him, it does not appear, from Dr. Kœmpfer’s description of this Japan plant, that it can be the same with our American one. The design, then, of this paper, is to lay before this Society some further reasons, why these plants cannot be the same; and that even if they were the same, Mr. Miller has produced no authority to shew, that this juice was ever made use of for this purpose abroad; with some remarks on his reply to my letter, in which he obliges me to be more particular than I intended, in explaining some errors, which I find he has run into. In my letter to Mr. Webb, I have pointed out the exact description, which Kœmpfer has given us of the leaves of this plant, shewing how much they differ from our American one: but now I shall mention some observations that escaped me before, and which, I think, will give us a clearer proof of this matter.
Kœmpfer, then, informs us, that this Japan varnish-tree, or _Sitz-dsju_, is a tree, not a shrub: and this author (it is well known) is remarkably exact in the description of his Japan plants, making the necessary distinctions between a shrub, an arborescent shrub, and a tree. He then goes on to explain the manner of its growth; and tells us, that it grows with long sappy shoots, very luxuriantly, to the height of a sallow or willow-tree, which we may reasonably allow to be from 20 to 30 feet: whereas this Carolina pennated Toxicodendron, as Mr. Miller tells us in his Dictionary, 6th edit. in folio, is a shrub, and seldom rises above five feet high with us: and many people, who have been in North America, agree, that it is but a slow grower there, and is one of the shrubby underwoods of that country: so that, allowing it to grow even double the height it does here, it is still but a shrub, in companion with the other. Further, while Dr. Dillenius was warm with this supposed discovery, of our having got the true Japan varnish-tree in America, attempts were made there, by intelligent persons under his direction, to procure this varnish after the manner of Kœmpfer; but without success, as I am assured by persons of that country now here, with whom the Doctor corresponded.
Let us now consult the growth of the Carolina and Virginia Sumachs, or Rhus’s, in our nursery-gardens, and compare them with this little shrubby Toxicodendron, and we shall find, that even in this cold climate nature keeps her regular proportionable pace in the growth of vegetables of the same country. Let us observe the growth of some of these Rhus’s, and we shall find that great luxuriancy of the shoots, which Kœmpfer so justly describes in his varnish-tree. One of these American ones even seems to promise the same height as the Japan Rhus; whereas this little shrubby Toxicodendron still preserves the same dwarfish slow-growing habit, that it has in its native country. This leads me, in the next place, to shew, that these two plants must be of different genus’s; the one a Rhus, and the other a Toxicodendron: and if so, according to Mr. Miller, they ought to be properly distinguished, and not ranked together, as Dr. Linnæus has done. In order to prove this, let us then examine Kœmpfer’s description of the parts of the flower, and see whether it does not answer exactly to the genus of Rhus; and whether the flowers are not male and female in themselves, that is, hermaphrodites, on the same tree. The original of Kœmpfer is as follows, p. 791 of his _Amœnitates_: “Flosculos continent pumilos, et citra coriandri seminis magnitudinem radiantes, in luteum herbaceos, pentapetalos, petalis carnosis nonnihil oblongis et repandis, staminibus ad petalorum interstitia singulis, apicatis, brevissimis, stylo perbrevi tricipite, floris turbini insidente; fructus flosculum excipit gibbosus utcunque in rhomboides figuram compressus.” Whereas Dr. Dillenius, and the authors that have copied after him, say, that his Toxicodendron has the male blossoms on one plant, and the female on the other; from whence it must evidently be another genus.
It appears, however, that Dr. Dillenius was not altogether ignorant of this difference of genus in these two plants; but, rather than his Toxicodendron, which he had made agree exactly in the leaves, should not agree in the fructification, he makes the accurate Kœmpfer guilty of an unpardonable oversight, in not taking notice of the difference of the sexes of this varnish-tree in different plants: whereas we have just now shewn, that nothing can be more minutely and judiciously described, than he has done both the male and female parts of the blossom, which change into the fruit on the same plant. The original of Dr. Dillenius’s remarks on Dr. Kœmpfer’s specimen runs thus: “Planta sicca, quæ in Japonia lecta, servatur in phytophylacio Sherardino, nostræ huic specie examussim quadrat, id tantum sexus nempe differentia prætervisa fuit auctori.” Hence we find how this error came to spread, and this false synonym to be adopted by the botanic writers, who copied after Dillenius. This shews us what little dependance we can have upon the result of that meeting, which Mr. Miller mentions he had with his botanic friends; where, from the similitude of leaves only, without the parts of fructification, they determined these two plants, so different in their growth, to be one and the same plant. Mr. Miller remarks very justly, that the leaves of the same tree often vary much in shape, such as those of the poplar, sallow, _&c._
But in answer to this, we may reasonably suppose, that Dr. Kœmpfer, who was on the spot, would not choose for his specimens leaves of the most uncommon sorts that were on the tree, and neglect the most common. This would be carrying the supposition farther than can be allowed, unless we suppose this author had not the understanding even of a common gardener; for otherwise, I am persuaded, Sir Hans Sloane would not have thought his specimens worth purchasing. For another synonym to the true Japan varnish-tree, as also to Dillenius’s pennated Toxicodendron with rhomboidal fruit, Mr. Miller brings in (in his answer to the Abbé Mazeas’s letter) the Bahama Toxicodendron _foliis alatis fructu purpureo pyriformi sparso_ of Catesby’s Nat. Hist. vol. i. p. 40. so that he would have all these three different plants one and the same; and, in his reply to my letter, he still insists on it, that these two Toxicodendrons are the same. But here I must beg the favour of this Honourable Society, when they come more attentively to consider this matter, to compare his answer to the Abbé Mazeas’s letter, and his reply to me, in this particular part. I shall only at present take notice, that Catesby says, this Toxicodendron, with the pear-shaped fruit, grows usually on rocks in Providence, Ilathera, and other of the Bahama islands; and does not mention, that he ever saw it in Carolina. I cannot find it described by any author as growing in Carolina, or in any other part of the continent of North America: nor do I believe that there is a plant of it now growing in England, or that it is even the same genus with Dillenius’s rhomboidal-fruited one, from the different structure both of its leaves as well as fruit.
In answer to this, I say their lobe-leaves are not equal; for I have examined both the specimens and drawings of Dr. Kœmpfer’s spurious varnish-tree, and I don’t find that the number of the _pinnæ_ exceed seven on a side: whereas I have a small specimen of a leaf by me, that was taken from the top of one of D’Incarville’s China varnish-trees, which is above eight feet high, and stands in an open exposure; and this leaf, tho’ but a foot long, has 12 lobe-leaves, on a side, and each lobe indented at the base[210]. At the same time I observed, that the leaves of the young shoots of another tree were a yard long, as they were this summer at the garden of the British Museum. Another thing is remarkable in the leaves of this China varnish-tree; and that is, the lobes of the leaves, as they approach to the end, grow smaller and smaller; whereas in the spurious Japan varnish-tree they are rather, if there is any difference, larger towards the end. I shall make this further remark, that tho’ these indentations on the lobe-leaves may vary in number in this China varnish-tree; yet, as I observed before, since they are continued on even in the smaller leaves at the top of the branches of a tree eight feet high in the open ground, it appears to me, that this specific character, besides the form and insertion of the lobe-leaves, will ever distinguish it as a different species from the _Fasi-no-ki_, or spurious varnish-tree of Kœmpfer.
Mr. Miller now goes on to tell us, he is confirmed in his belief of their being the same, by making some observations on the seeds of this China varnish-tree; and therefore asserts, that they are the same. It is natural to suppose he compared them with the accurate drawings of the seeds of Kœmpfer’s _Fasi-no-ki_, p. 794. that being the only place where the seeds of it are described. In the very next paragraph Mr. Miller seems to forget, that from his own observations on the seeds of the China varnish-tree, he has asserted it to be the _Fasi-no-ki_ of Kœmpfer; but now he finds, in his memorandums, that those seeds were wedge-shaped, and like the seeds of the beech-tree; and that all the three seeds he received seemed to be inclosed in one capsule: so that now he is at a loss what to call it; and at the same time says I have been too hasty in calling it a Rhus. Mr. Miller goes on, and allows this China varnish-tree changes to a purple in the autumn; but not so deep as the true varnish-tree. I suppose he means, by this true varnish-tree, the Carolina pennated Toxicodendron; for Kœmpfer has not told us what colour the true varnish-tree of Japan changes to in autumn.
But this is no certain proof on either side of the question, only a corroborating circumstance of the species of a tree: nor should I have mentioned it, but for the manner in which Kœmpfer, with an imagination truly poetical, describes the autumnal beauty of his _Fasi-no-ki_, or spurious varnish-tree. “Rubore suo autumnati quâ viridantes sylvas suaviter interpolat, intuentium oculos e longinquo in se convertit.” Even this description would make one suspect it is not the same with the China varnish-tree, which, I am informed, did not turn purplish in the garden of the British Museum till the first frost came on: whereas it is well known, that some of the Rhus’s and Toxicodendrons, particularly the Carolina pennated one, change to a fine scarlet colour in the beginning of a dry autumn, even before any frost appears. Mr. Miller seems surprised, how I should think, that the Carolina pennated Toxicodendron, or poison-ash is like the _Fasi-no-ki_ of Kœmpfer. I must here acknowledge, at this time, not having seen Doctor Kœmpfer’s specimen, I imagined, from the shape of the lobe-leaves (as he has described them) and from the remarkable scarlet colour of both these trees in autumn, that Mr. Miller might be right in what he has advanced; for it was from his authority I took it, depending on the information he gives us in his Dictionary, fol. edit. 6. under the article _Toxicodendron_, where he takes some pains to assure us, that they are the very same plants.
In the next paragraph I find Mr. Miller has intirely mistaken the meaning of one part of my letter to Mr. Webb; which I must recommend to him to read again, and he will find it exactly agrees with his own sentiments. There he will find my opinion is, that notwithstanding the change of soil and situation, this _Sitz-dsju_, or true varnish-tree, and the _Fasi-no-ki_, or spurious varnish-tree of Kœmpfer, are distinct species of Rhus or Toxicodendron, and will ever remain so. Mr. Miller now desires me, since I have seen Dr. Kœmpfer’s specimens in the British Museum, to declare, whether I think I am mistaken. In answer to this, and to satisfy Mr. Miller as well as myself, I have been very lately at the Museum, and have looked very carefully over Dr. Kœmpfer’s specimens, and do sincerely think, as did other judges at the same time, that the _Sitz-dsju_ is not the same with the Carolina pennated Toxicodendron, nor the _Fasi-no-ki_ the same with Father D’Incarville’s China varnish-tree. Mr. Miller informs us, that one of the best kinds of varnishes is collected from the Anacardium in Japan.
In answer to this, I must beg leave to shew the Society, that Dr. Kœmpfer does not so much as mention, that this Anacardium grows in Japan; but that the varnish, which is collected from it, is brought to them from Siam: and I believe it will appear plainly, from what follows, that there is not a plant of this kind in the kingdom of Japan; for Siam and Cambodia, especially the parts of those kingdoms, where Kœmpfer informs us this Anacardium[211] grows, lie in the latitudes of from 10 to 15 degrees north, which must be full as hot as our West Indies: so that it is not probable, that it would bear the cold of the winters in Japan; for Japan lies from the latitudes of 33 to above 40 degrees north, which is about the same parallel with our North American colonies.
Ideas discussed in this chapter
Text from Project Gutenberg, public domain in the United States.