Many authors have at different times treated upon this subject; some who never saw the Tea-tree, as well as others who have seen it[10]. I shall enumerate those who are mentioned in the Species plantarum of Linnæus[11].
Thea; Hortus Cliffort. 204. Mat. Med. 264. Hill. Exot. t. 22.
Thee; Kæmpfer. Japan. 605. t. 606.
Thee frutex; Barthol. Act. 4. p. 1. t. 1. Bont. Jav. Amstel. fol. 87 ad 88.
Thee Sinensium; Breyn. Cent. 111. t. 112. incon. 17. t. 3. Bocc. Mus. 114. t. 94.
Chaa; Casp. Bauhin. Pinax Theatri Botanici. Basil. 1623. 4to.p. 147.
Evonymoaffinis arbor orientalis nucifera, flore roseo; Pluk. Alm. Botan. Stirp. nov. tradens. 1200. Lond. 1705. fol. 139. t. 88. fig. 6.
In the Acta Haffniensia, we meet with the first figure of this tree; but, as it was taken from a dried specimen, it does notillustrate the subject very well. Bontius published another, and though drawn in India, where he might have seen the plant, it does not much surpass the preceding. The figure given by Plukenet is better than either of the former; and after his, Breynius published one still better: but of all the engravings formerly executed, that given by Kæmpfer must be allowed to be the most accurate[12]; yet even this icon, like all the others published by this industrious naturalist, is extremely imperfect; although he certainly saw the living plants which he has represented, however expert the Chinese may be in deception[13].