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 looking over Dr. Linnæus’s _Hortus Cliffortianus_, I find he gives this Bahama Toxicodendron of Catesby as a synonym to his _Elemifera foliis pinnatis_, p. 486. I now come to that part of Mr. Miller’s reply, relating to the China varnish-tree, that was raised from seeds sent to the Royal Society by Father D’Incarville; where he still insists on it, that this is the same with the spurious varnish-tree of Kœmpfer. His reasons are, that notwithstanding the indentation and roundness of the bottom of the lobe-leaves of the China varnish-tree, and tho’ the lobe-leaves of the spurious Japan varnish-tree come to a point at the base, and are no-way indented, but quite even on the edges; yet he says, because they have an equal number of _pinnæ_, or lobe-leaves, on the whole leaf of each tree, they must be the same. [Illustration: _Philos. Trans. Vol. L._ TAB. XVII. _p. 447_. _Rhus sinense foliis alates foliolis oblongis Acuminatis ad basin sultrotundis et dentatis._ _J. Mynde delin et sc._ _Ex Horto Betanice Philippe Carter. & Webb. Armig._]