The first intimation I had of the American shrub being the same with Dr. Kœmpfer’s true varnish-tree, was from the late Dr. William Sherard, in the year 1726, when that gentleman desired me to bring him a specimen of the American Toxicodendron from the Chelsea garden; which I accordingly did: and then the Doctor, and Dr. Dillenius, compared it with a dried specimen in the collection of the former, which was gathered in Japan, and which, if I remember right, he told me he received from Dr. Kœmpfer some years before. It appeared to those two gentlemen, that they were the same; and their skill in the science of botany was never doubted. About a year after this, I carried a specimen of the American Toxicodendron to an annual meeting of some botanists at Sir Hans Sloane’s in Bloomsbury; where there were present Mr. Dale of Braintree, Mr. Joseph Miller, Mr. Rand, and some others; which was then compared with Dr. Kœmpfer’s specimen, whose collection Sir Hans Sloane had purchased: and it was the opinion of every one present, that they were the same. Nor has any one doubted of their being so, who has compared the American shrub with Kœmpfer’s figure and description of his true varnish-tree, but Mr. Ellis. And now give me leave to examine his reasons for differing in opinion from every late botanist, who has mentioned this shrub. He says, that the midrib, which supports the lobe leaves, is quite smooth in the poison-ash, as is also the under side of the leaves; whereas Dr. Kœmpfer, in his description of the midrib of the true varnish-tree, calls it _læviter lanuginoso_; and in his description of the lobes or _pinnæ_ he says, they are _basi inequaliter rotunda_; whereas those of the poison-ash come to a point at their footstalks nearly equal to that at the top. These characters, Mr. Ellis thinks, are sufficient to prove, that they are different plants: and he blames Dr. Dillenius for having omitted these necessary characters in his description of it; and supposes this must have misled the accurate Linnæus, who quotes his synonyma. But as Dr. Linnæus is possessed of Kœmpfer’s book, he would little have deserved the appellation of accurate in this particular, had he not consulted the original, but trusted to a copy. But this I know he has done, and is as well assured, that the plants in question are the same, as Mr. Ellis can be of the contrary.