Search

The correct name for the New Zealand plant, kanono (Rubiaceae), is Coprosma autumnalis Colenso, which name is lectotypified here. A drawing made of the species by John Buchanan in the late 1860s is reproduced. The phenology of the plant, marked in the specific epithet, is examined.

Rico & Sousa in Sousa (1986) published Pithecellobium campylacanthus L. Rico & M. Sousa and I, as first author, feel responsible for the name. We used 'campylacanthus' as an epithet to mean 'with curved spines' but the ending did not agree with Pithecellobium as it should have in its adjectival form, i.e., P campylacanthum. R. C. Barneby later pointed out (pers. comm.) our error, but at the time I was fully engaged on my PhD thesis and did not pursue the matter.

During preliminary work on the Family Myrtaceae for the Flora of Tropical East Africa I looked through Ashton's treatment of Syzygium for A Revised Handbook to the Flora of Ceylon 2: 420 453 (1981) and noticed there was a species S. sclerophyllum Thwaites (Enum. P1. Zeyl.: 118 (1859)). J. P. M. Brenan described a characteristic species from the evergreen forests of the West Usambaras in Tanzania using the same name; this unfortunately requires a new epithet. Coincidentally the two species are rather similar in appearance.

Problems were experienced in trying to apply a name to material of a species of Trichogonia, identical to Eupatorium crenulatum Gardner, and coming from the type locality of T. margarethiae Soares Nunes (1981) (the ending of the specific epithet is altered from 'margarethi' as it is assumed that Margareth Daniel Barbosa Livio is female). Gardner's name, Eupatorium crenulatum, based on Gardner 4850, was first synonymised by Baker (1873), under Trichogonia hirtiflora (DC.) Sch.Bip. ex Baker. This opinion was followed by Barroso (1951) and King & Robinson (1987). At present I disagree and propose the following new combination, and new synonymy, although further field work may eventually provide evidence that T. hirtiflora is a much more variable taxon than currently accepted. The current synonymy is as follows

It is unfortunate when an overlooked, old name turns out to provide an earlier epithet for a plant that has been known under another name for a long time. When it is a plant of economic importance, or when it can be shown that its nomenclatural type has long been misinterpreted, then proposals can be made which will lead to the conservation of the well-known name, but in other cases there is, unfortunately, no such let-out and nomenclatural priority has to be enforced. Perhaps in such cases the sooner the new name is published and taken into use the better. With this in mind the following combination is made to dispose of a name proposed as long ago as 1768, but in the wrong genus (and family), while helping towards a revision of the genusJasminum. I am most grateful to the Director of the Conservatoire et Jardin Botanique, Geneva, for the loan of the Burman type involved, for this has enabled me to settle the correct identity of the plant whose name has been a mystery to me for some years. I also wish to thank Dr D. O. Wijnands of Wageningen for reminding me of the problem, and the Director of the Rijksherbarium, Leiden, for the loan of the type of Dicerolepis paludosa B1.

Summary. Lemurophoenix with a single species, L. halleuxii from north-eastern Madagascar is described and its affinities discussed. The existence of a very large tree palm, known locally as "hovitra vari mena" ("red-lemur palm"), in the forests of northeastern Madagascar was brought to my attention by a palm enthusiast, Dr M. E. Darian of Vista, California who had also drawn my attention to the possible existence of a cocoid palm, Voanioala (Dransfield 1989). Photographs of the palm suggested a plant of great size and considerable beauty, but fragments of leaves and inflorescence brought out of Madagascar by Darian were insufficient to allow a generic assignment. However, corky-warted fruits said to belong to the "red-lemur palm" were unlike fruits of any palm recorded for Madagascar, and very young staminate flower buds seemed to show the presence of at least 20 stamens, multistaminy being unusual in Malagasy palms. These tantalising fragments were all that was available during the period of preparation of Genera Palmarum (Uhl & Dransfield 1987); they clearly belonged to an undescribed palm, but were insufficient for an adequate description. Furthemore, the fragments presented so many unusual features that their conspecificity was called into question. It was thus necessary to wait patiently for an opportunity to carry out fieldwork. The first period of fieldwork in October 1986 yielded fruiting material of the "red-lemur palm"; this was sufficient to show that the palm did not belong to any described genus, but flowers would be needed to prepare a good description. On my second visit to the Maroantsetra region of northeast Madagascar in February 1988, excellent material was obtained at staminate anthesis, and although the material of pistillate flowers was still very young, much of the structure is already discernible. There remain some problems in interpreting fruit structure which may only be resolved if developmental material is available. In the meantime a name is required for this species; it is already in enthusiasts' collections and because it is so rare in the wild it is essential that action be taken to conserve it, and this also requires that it have a name. The generic name that I propose for this wonderful palm reflects the Malagasy local name while the specific epithet honours Dominic Halleux, who together with Gerard Jean and Dr Darian has discovered and brought to my attention several remarkable Malagasy palms. Lemurophoenix J. Dransf. gen. nov. Palma monoeca pleonantha inermis foliis reduplicato-pinnatis, vaginis columnam coronae formantibus; inflore

Accepted for publication December 1989. * Although the usually very scholarly Hans Hallier originally spelt the epithet 'incomta' in both his publications and was followed by all other botanists who referred to it in print, several specimens had been written up as 'incompta' at Kew. Investigation showed that incomtus has no meaning in Latin, whereas incomptus can mean dishevelled, unkept, shaggy etc, and is obviously what Hallier meant to employ. Dr R. K. Brummitt gave his opinion that under Art. 73.1 of the Code the spelling may and indeed should be corrected. ** A rendering of the first half of Stictocardia into Kiswahili.

While comparing the Norfolk Island specimens of Baloghia lucida Endl. with the collections from New Caledonia at Kew I came across a type specimen of Croton inophyllum Forst. f. which was undoubtedly conspecific. Because Forster's epithet is an earlier one by many years I have also examined Forster material of this name from other herbaria and each of the three specimens I have now seen are without doubt the plant that has been known as B. lucida. As a consequence the new combination below becomes necessary.

When I revised the genus Pentas I named a geophilous species occurring in southern Tanzania and Malawii as P. geophila. Whilst working on the genus Heinsia for the 'Flora of Tropical East Africa' I had occasion to look at the type of Heinsia lindenioides S. Moore and found to my great surprise that it is identical with my supposed new species of Pentas. Since Moore's epithet is almost fifty years earlier than mine a new combination is required. I feel no great shame over this (save for the loss of an apt name) since one does not expect a person who had a good knowledge of the family to describe a species in the wrong genus, and in fact the wrong tribe-it is one of those unfortunate cases which only comes to light by accident.

In a recent search through the Solanum specimens in the van Royen herbarium**, we found a sheet (L-No. 908, 245-921) bearing a specimen of the species which was known for a long time as S. sodomeum and more recently as S. hermannii (see Hepper 1978 & 1979b for an explanation of this change of names). Attached to this sheet is a MS note written by B. L. Burtt of Edinburgh, dated 1960, identifying the specimen as type material of S. virginianum L. On the sheet itself is another MS annotation, seemingly contemporary with the specimen, which is a copy of the descriptive name published by Adriaan van Royen (1740 p. 425 species No. 15) that Linnaeus (1753) was to use as the phrase name for S. virginianum. At first sight it appeared to us that this sheet did indeed typify S. virginianum, and that this therefore was the correct name for the species hitherto known as S. sodomeumlS. hermannii. However, we are indebted to Dr C. E. Jarvis at BM (NH) and DrJ. F. Veldkamp at L for their observation that the handwriting on the sheet can be identified as belonging to David van Royen (1727-99) who succeeded his uncle, Adriaan, as director of the botanical garden at Leid6n in 1754. Now ascribed to David van Royen, the sheet in question must be assumed to have been prepared at some time after Linnaeus' visit to Holland (1735-38) and after the publication of Adriaan van Royen's Florae leydensis prodromus (1740), and possibly after the Species plantarum. Thus, this sheet ought not to be considered type material of S. virginianum L. We have been unable to locate any of A. van Royen's specimens which might be types of S. virginianum and so we have had to turn to the other elements in the Linnaean protologue. Linnaeus cited two synonyms to the van Royen phrase name, referring in turn to Dillenius' Hortus elthamensis 360, t. 267 and Plukenet's Almagestum 351, t. 62, fig. 3. The Plukenet synonym includes the adjective virginianum which Linnaeus used for the specific epithet. In their original publications both synonyms accompany illustrations. The Plukenet illustration (Phytographia t. 62 fig. 3) is a mere 110 x 100 mm and is a rather stylized representation of a plant which nevertheless has a clear affinity to the larger (213 x 275 mm), and certainly more natural, plate in the Dillenian work.

Kunze (1850) was the first to recognize that the species of Osmunda which grows in Ceylon is not the same as Blume's 0. javanica. He described it as O. zeylanica, an illegitimate name preoccupied by O. zeylanica L. An excellent plate accompanies his description. 0. javanica Bl. is illustrated in the same work and the characters which distinguish the two are specified in Kunze's account of his new species. When Hooker (1837) described Osmunda vachelii from Hong Kong he was distinguishing it from the Ceylonese and not the Javanese species for he stated that it was 'allied to the 0. javanica of Blume of which latter I possess specimens gathered in Ceylon by Col. Walker.' Subsequently however in the Synopsis Filicum (1868) Hooker and Baker included all simply pinnate species within 0. javanica Bl. and in this they were followed by Thwaites, Beddome and their contemporaries. Christensen (1906) seems to have been the first modern pteridologist to recognize the soundness of Kunze's original separation of the Ceylonese from the Javanese species, but instead of reinstating Kunze's species under a new name he equated it with the eastern Asiatic 0. banksiifolia (Presl) Kuhn. In doing this he may have been following Milde's monograph (1868) wherein 0. zeylanica Kunze is also equated with 0. banksiifolia though under the name 0. presliana J. Sm., a superfluous new name unnecessarily proposed as a substitute for Presl's earlier name. It was not until more than a century after its original description that the Ceylonese Osmunda was again reinstated by Bobrov (1967) as Plenasium zeylanicum Bobrov. As regards the use of the generic name Plenasium, the species of Osmunda fall naturally into three groups, Osmunda, Osmundastrum and Plenasium and a few pteridologists have treated these as independent genera. The majority do not favour such a division, however, nor does it seem to me to serve any useful purpose to break up a small, phylogenetically isolated and sharply defined genus such as Osmunda. I therefore maintain the generic name wherein a new specific epithet is required and propose to call the Ceylonese species

Work on 'Flora Zambesiaca' and 'Flora of Southern Africa' requires us to make a decision on the identity of Bauhinia bainesii Schinz in M6m. Herb. Boiss. I: 121 (1900). In the protologue Schinz clearly cited his own collection 2061 from South West Africa, a sterile specimen now at Zuirich (Z) and undoubtedly referable to Tylosema esculentum (Burch.) Schreiber. In his discussion, however, he also referred a collection by Baines, now at Kew and known to have come from Rhodesia, to the same species. No doubt this specimen prompted the epithet bainesii, and it might be assumed that this should therefore be taken as the type of the name. The Baines collection is on two sheets, one bearing stems and flowers only and the other stems, leaves and fruit only, and is clearly referable to Tylosema fassoglense (Schweinf.) Torre & Hillcoat. Brenan, in Fl. Trop. E. Afr. Legum.-Caesalp.: 214 (1967), has given B. bainesii as a synonym of' T.fassoglensis', citing both the Baines and Schinz collections as syntypes, whereas almost simultaneously Schreiber in Prodr. Fl. S.W. Afr. 59: 20 (1967) has given it as a synonym of T. esculentum, citing only Schinz 2061 as type material. A descision on typification of the name is now necessary. It could be argued that Schreiber's citation of the Schinz specimen only could be regarded as implicit lectotypification, but it seems likely that this was unintentional and merely a reflection of editorial policy which cites types of synonyms only when they are from the Flora area. For what it is worth as a possible lectotypification, however, Schreiber's account appears to have priority, having been received at Kew on 3 March 1967 while the Fl. Trop. E. Afr. account is dated May of that year. Consideration of the protologue gives further support for typification in this sense, for Schinz stated that he had before him only a sterile specimen, which is clearly his own 2061. The detailed description given is based only on vegetative characters, evidently taken from this specimen. In his second paragraph he referred to the inflorescence, which might be thought to be derived from the Baines collection, but at the same time referred to the habit and underground parts and uses of the plant by the local tribe in South West Africa, and it is clear that these comments were based on his own field observations. None

Whilst listing some records of R. H. C. C. Scheffer (Ann. Jard. Bot. Buitenzorg I: i-6o (1876)) from New Guinea, Baron F. von Mueller made several new combinations which appear to have eluded the compilers of the Index Kewensis at the time but were noted at a much later date in supplement 13. Between these times C. T. White described a species of Albizia using the same name as one of von Mueller's. I have therefore replaced this with a similar epithet.

Whilst checking on the earliest combination of the epithet puniceum in Hippeastrum, Mr. J. R. Sealy drew my attention to what appeared to be an older name, Amaryllis dubia L., first described in the Dissertation 'Plantae Surinamenses' of 1775 (reprinted in Amoen. Acad. 8 (I785)). It seems, however, that Herbert was right when on p. 409 of his 'Amaryllidaceae' (1837) he wrote: 'Hippeastrum barbatum.-This plant was called Amaryllis dubia by Linnaeus (Amoen.), not intending dubia to be its specific name, but because he was in doubt about the plant .. .' A careful look at Linnaeus' work shows that whilst the epithets are printed in italics, several adjectives or phrases like 'dubia', 'obscurus' (-a -um), 'nova' (-um), 'absque flore' are printed in Roman. The only exceptions are Aloj perfoliata (p. 7) and Rhizophora Mangle (p. 9), which will have to be taken as accidents. The fact that under several genera there are two species with the adjectives or phrases given above, can only be interpreted as definite proof of this view. Although attributed at times to other authors, the earliest combination of the binomial Hippeastrum puniceum seems to be by Kuntze, even though it was obscured by the error of printing 'purpureum as the epithet. This was done as follows in his Reviso Generu n 2 (1891). 'Hippeastrum purpureum O K. (Amarylis purp. Lam. 1783-Am. equ. Ait. I789-Hippeastrum equestrc Herb.) Portorico: Caguas.' There is no Amaryllis purp rea in Lamarck's Encyclopedia vol. I (1783). The only Amaryllis purpurea is that of Aiton (1789) which is Vallota speciosa (L. f.) Dur. & Schinz (= V. purpurea (Ait.) Herb.) from South Africa. Thus Kuntze has everything right except the epithet 'purpurea', and I am in full agreement with Backer (Flor;n ofJava 3: 143 (1968)), who corrects the epithet to 'puniceum' and attributes the combination to Kuntze. The correct citations and synonymy, both for the plants of the typical variety, and for those which are more robust with bigger flowers (var. majus) are as follows

The species are dealt with in the order in which they will appear in Flora of Tropical East Africa with an additional species interpolated. Running numbers have been provided to facilitate the use of the index to epithets. Keys to infraspecific taxa are provided in instances where areas other than the Flora area are covered. Full citations are given for new species and short citations for new infraspecific taxa and in a few instances where the epithet dealt with has not previously been in common use. All specimens cited below have been seen unless otherwise stated; the geographical sequence follows F.T.E.A. usage. I wish to thank the Directors of the following Herbaria for sending me material on loan-Brussels (BR), Florence (FI) and Paris (P) and Dr Verdcourt for the latin translations and general advice.

Much confusion has arisen in the past as to the correct epithet for, and the typification of, Bacopa monnieri and this has never been satisfactorily clarified. It is the purpose of this note to try to rectify this. Patrick Browne, in the first edition of his 'Natural History of Jamaica' published in March 1756, gave a very concise phrase-name under the name Moniera (p. 269) accompanied by an illustration, No. 28, fig. 3 by Ehret. He stated here that the name Moniera was given by Jussieu but failed to say in whose honour. In the second edition of his 'History' in 1789, Browne used the Linnaean binomial, Gratiola monnieria, not in the main text but in his Index I and on Ehret's illustration.

An undescribed giant Lobelia with very distinctive leaves was discovered in 1972 by Dr D. Mabberley on one of the peaks in the Ukaguru Mts in central Tanzania. As only sterile plants were found it was left unnamed as L. sp. A in his recent revision of the group (Mabberley 1974). In June 1978 I had the opportunity to visit these mountains and on the same peak, Mnyera, I was fortunate to find a single individual of the Lobelia in flower along with perhaps 30-40 sterile plants of various ages, including several seedlings. The species appeared to be well known to the local people (Kaguru) who considered it a holy plant to which they used to sacrifice (hence the specific epithet). It was said to occur also on some other peaks, one of which, Matandu, we visited however without finding the plant. The species is thus known for certain only in a single small population. The locality is situated well inside the Mamiwa Forest Reserve, so the continued existence of the species seems assured.

Marin (in Trav. Inst. Sci. Cherif., Bot. 27: 24 (1962)) raised Ixia bulbocodium L. var. major Schousb., Iagttag. Vextrig. Marokko: 25 (1800oo), to specific rank as Romulea major (Schousb.) Marin. If her argument is correct and Schousboe's Ixia bulbocodium var. major is the same as R. bulbocodium var. clusiana (Lange) Nym., then she was wrong to use the prior epithet major at specific level. Only at varietal level would it have priority over the epithet clusiana.

During his studies of Ethiopian Oleaceae at the 'Herbarium Aethiopicum' in the Herbarium of the University of Florence (FI) the author became aware of the fact that the holotype of Linociera giordanoi Chiov. (Giordano 2396 bis, 'a Humbi (Saio)' [near Dembidollo, SW. Ethiopia]) was identical to the species better known as L. latipetala M. R. F. Taylor, which is distributed from Ethiopia throughout East and Central Africa to Cameroun (see the map by Lieben in Distrib. P1. Afr. no. 208 (i973), also Lieben's accounts in Bull. Jard. Bot. Nat. Belg. 43: 357-358 (I973) & in Fl. Afr. Centr., Oleaceae (1973))The first name used for this taxon was Campanolea mildbraedii Gilg & Schellenb. (in Engl., Bot. Jahrb. 51 : 74 (1913)), then regarded as representing a monotypic genus. The name of this genus, Campanolea, was reduced to a synonym of Olea by E. Knoblauch (in Notizbl. Bot. Gart. Berlin I i: 673 (1932)), a view which was followed by W. B. Turrill in his account of the Oleaceae for Fl. Trop. E. Afr. (1952). Under Olea the correct name is O. mildbraedii (Gilg & Schellenb.) Knobl. However, if one considers the genus Linociera in the sense that it has generally been understood by recent authors on the African flora, as shown in the study of the Oleaceae of Southern Africa by I. C. Verdoorn (in Bothalia 6: 594 (1956)), then the species is a Linociera. Since there is already a L. mildbraedii Gilg & Schellenb. (in Mildbr., Deutsch. Zentr.-Afr.-Exp. 1907-08, 2: 527 (1913)), now considered a synonym of L. africana (Knobl.) Knobl., it becomes necessary to study the priority of the two later available binomials, viz. L. latipetala M. R. F. Taylor (in Bull. Misc. Inf. Kew, 1940: 54 (1940)) and L. giordanoi Chiov. (in Atti R. Accad. Ital., Mem. Clas. Sci. I11(2): 50 (1940) as giordani). According to the information on the cover of the 1940volume of Kew Bulletin the epithet latipetala was published on 4 April and this is also the date on which the fascicle in question has been registered as received at Kew. An exact date of publication is not indicated on the paper by E. Chiovenda in which the epithet giordanoi was published, but a separate of his paper was registered as having been received at Kew on 28 March 1940 and the paper must therefore have been published some time earlier.

Summary. Oenanthe procumbens (Wolff) Norman and Oe. palustris (Chiov.) Norman are retained in Oenanthe in spite of the differences in fruit anatomy which caused Chiovenda to describe the genus Stephanorossia, here reduced to subgeneric rank, and the combination proposed. Afroligusticum elliotii (Engl.) Norman is recorded from Tanzania. Oenanthe being a rather troublesome genus in much of its range, some difficulties were anticipated in dealing with the African species, in spite of the fact that Norman (1932, 1933) had apparently tidied them up very nicely. In describing his Oe. uhligii Norman (1932) stated that: 'the ripe fruit of this species .... can best be described by comparing it with that of the widely spread and well-known Oe. stolonifera (Roxb.) DC., from which it is practically indistinguishable, both outwardly and in the cross-section . . . .' In view of this it was puzzling that when Norman (1933) discovered that Stephanorossia palustris Chiov. provided an earlier specific epithet for his Oe. uhligii, he made no comment on the very different fruit anatomy described by Chiovenda which caused the latter to place his new genus Stephanorossia in a completely different tribe of the Umbelliferae from Oenanthe. Norman simply stated in his second paper: 'I must confess that I am unable to see that Stephanorossia Chiov. differs in any way from Oenanthe L., as understood by, I believe, all recent writers'. Presumably Norman was so convinced of the correctness of his own observations that he merely assumed that Chiovenda's description was erroneous. Having previous experience of lapses on Chiovenda's part, I had every expectation when I came to investigate the matter that Norman's view would be justified. It is not. Chiovenda's observation of the characters which are important in this case-viz., the number of ribs on the fruit and the position of the vittae--was perfectly accurate, and Norman's was apparently faulty. The three African species of Oenanthe, all well-known, are Oe. mildbraedii Wolff, Oe. palustris (Chiov.) Norman and Oe. procumbens (Wolff) Norman. This last was described as a second species of Stephanorossia (elliotii) by J. J. Clark (1913), the type specimen being Scott Elliot 7791-which is also a syntype of Oenanthe procumbens and of Oe. ruwenzoriensis Norman (a synonym of procumbens). This implies that Clark believed (a) that Chiovenda's observations on Stephanorossia palustris Chiov. were correct, and (b) that the characters which Chiovenda described at a generic level were found also in Scott Elliot 7791. Clark, too, was quite correct. The fruit anatomy of the plants at present called Oenanthe procumbens and Oe. palustris is quite diverse from that found in Oe. mildbraedii, and that recorded in the literature for Oenanthe gener

Although Desfontaines (1807) validly published the name 0. umbilicata, his epithet appears to have been overlooked by most later workers, a fact brought to light by Baumann & Kiinkele (1981). In addition, some authors have been unaware of the correct identity of 0. umbilicata, e.g. Nelson (1962) treats it in synonymy under the unrelated 0. bombyliflora Link. Desfontaines' original description and illustration clearly refer to the widespread eastern Mediterranean plant (commonly referred to in recent literature as 0. scolopax Cav. subsp. orientalis (Renz) E. Nelson) and belongs to section Fuciflorae Reichb. f. which contains 0. apifera Huds., 0. holoserica (Burm. f.) Greuter (O.fuciflora (Crantz) Moench.), 0. scolopax Cav. and 0. tenthredinifera Willd. It is most closely allied to 0. scolopax which is a much more widespread species occurring throughout the Mediterranean and Portugal. 0. scolopax differs in having a rather oval mid-lobe to the lip which, when flattened, is broadest at or below the middle rather than flabellate and broadest towards

When naming some Malesian Amaranthaceae in the herbaria of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, and the British Museum (Natural History), I came across isotypes of two Philippine taxa described by Merrill in the genus Cyathula. I then realized that Backer, when reducing both taxa to a single variety under C. prostrata, had created an incorrect combination, as Merrill's varietal epithet should have been given priority in that rank (cf. Art. 6o of the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature).

The index to volumes 1-36 of The Flowering Plants of Africa (1964) edited by R. A. Dyer, where the names used in those volumes are brought up-to-date, indicates that W. ardernei [19, t. 750 (1939)], is regarded as a synonym of W. pyramidata (Andr.) Stapf [25, t. 974 (1945)]. Mrs A. A. Mauve (nee Obermeyer), of the Botanical Research Institute, Pretoria, in a verbal communication, has informed me that they regard W. ardernei as an albino of W. pyramidata which botanically merits no taxonomic distinction. It is, however, essential to have a name to distinguish it for horticultural purposes. The earliest name given to this white-flowered plant is Watsonia iridifolia var. obrienii N.E. Br. in Gard. Chron. III, 6: 350 (1889), and if in future this taxon should again be distinguished from typical W. pyramidata, this is the epithet which will have to be used. Under the International Code of Nomenclature of Cultivated Plants, 1969, Art. 27C, the choice of epithet for a cultivar name is not based on priority, but on the best preservation of established usage.

In 1828 Messrs. Conrad Loddiges and Sons received from Ferdinand Deppe, then collecting in Mexico accompanied by Christian Schiede, an orchid which flowered in their stove in I830. They figured it in their Botanical Cabinet (t. 1612) in the same year and gave to it the name Maxillaria deppii. In all probability Loddiges had no intention of latinizing Deppe's name to 'Deppius' and the spelling of the epithet must be regarded as an unintentional orthographic error for 'deppei'. Loddiges gave no description of the plant, and the plate carries no drawings of dissections; the valid publication of the name was by Lindley in December, 1832 (Gen. Sp. Orch. Pl. 147), who attributed it to Loddiges and adopted the erroneous spelling.

Among numerous interesting plants recently collected in Kenya and sent to Kew by Mr. R. B. Faden was a member of the Chenopodiaceae in which Mr. Faden acutely expressed particular interest. At his request it was given special attention, and after due investigation the junior author (Townsend) decided that it represented not merely a new species to tropical Africa, as Mr. Faden had suspected, but in fact a new genus of the Suaedoideae. A portion of the material was sent to the senior author, who immediately concurred with this opinion, postulating Sevada Moq. as being the genus with the closest affinity. The new genus is here dedicated to the collector, the specific epithet referring to the longitudinally winged mature perianths which superficially resemble those of certain species of Zygophyllum.

Frutex erectus, foliis fasciculatis obovatis coriaceis brevissime petiolatis. Flores solitarii axillares pedicellati. Abissinia meridionale, Dare (n. 331). Genus Sect. Hildebrandtieae pertinens.' Although short, this description gives the salient characters and Chiovenda's indications of affinity strongly suggested that the plant is identical with the one collected by Mr. O. West [No. 5424] which I supposed might be a new genus allied to Hildebrandtia Vatke (Kew Bull. 14: 335 (1960)). The genus Sabaudiella is not further mentioned in any Flora, nor are specimens referred to that name present in any of the herbaria I have consulted. I therefore wrote to Dr. G. Moggi of Florence to ascertain if any type material was deposited there. He replied that the type was preserved at Turin and kindly arranged for it to be sent to Nairobi. It is a poor fruiting specimen but undoubtedly identical with West 5424 mentioned above. From these two specimens Mrs. M. E. Church has drawn the accompanying illustrationt which will allow the plant readily to be recognized in the future. An amended description is given below. The field label bears the additional information that the collector's name was C. Basile and that the date of collection was 18 Dec. 1928. A manuscript name meaning large calyx is also written on the label but Chiovenda must have changed the epithet when writing his paper.

(P. F. H.) commenced a taxonomic study of the genus Pleione D. Don with especial reference to those species found in cultivation. The preliminary results of this work, including a key for the identification of the species with horticultural notes, has already been published (Roy. Hort. Soc., Dict. Gard., Suppl., 1969) but the purpose of the following contribution is to reduce formally to synonymy many of the concepts hitherto considered distinct. An originally independent survey into the cytology of the cultivated species was begun in 1965 by one of us (C. G. V.) but as the results of the two approaches, cytological and taxonomic, were so inter-related it was agreed to collaborate and publish them in this joint paper. About forty specific epithets have been published in the genus Pledone and considerable confusion exists among the names given to plants in cultivation. Understandable and acceptable differences of taxonomic opinion were confounded with outright mis-identifications. Minor colour variations with, occasionally, very small differences in labellum shape, size and number of crests have been used in the past as differential characters. To complicate the problem further, the species in cultivation were usually represented by a very few clones which often represented only the extremes of variation in colour, etc. Few intermediate plants have been seen by horticultural authors, who, naturally, base their opinions on the living material with which they are familiar.

In 1842, at the sale of the great private herbarium of A. B. Lambert, the British Museum acquired 674 specimens collected by Francis Buchanan (later Hamilton) in Nepal. These specimens had formed part of the basis for David Don's pioneering 'Prodromus Florae Nepalensis' (1825), and many of them are consequently the types of new species described in that work. Despite the existence of these specimens, however, the identity of many of the species concerned has long been a mystery, the more so since they were not examined by Sir Joseph Dalton Hooker during the preparation of his classical 'Flora of British India'. An example of such a species is Erigeron leucanthum D. Don. The specific epithet was doubtfully transferred to Blumea (as B. ? leucanthema) by De Candolle (Prodr. 5: 436 (1836)), and the species was regarded as being of uncertain status by J. D. Hooker (Fl. Brit. Ind. 3: 270 (i881)) and more recently by Randeria in her excellent monograph of Blumea (Blumea Io: 176-317 (1960)). In the herbarium of the Department of Botany, British Museum (Natural History), however, there is preserved a specimen which is undoubtedly to be regarded as the type of Erigeron leucanthum, labelled 'Conyza odorata ? Bassaria March Ist 1802' with the epithet 'leucanthemea B[uchanan]' added later, all of these notations being in the hand of Francis Buchanan. The fact that this specimen is undoubtedly referable to the species generally known as Conyza viscidula Wall. ex DC. (Prodr. 5: 383 (1836)), of which we have seen an isotype (Wallich, Cat. No. 3006, from Nawakot ['Noakott'], Nepal (BM*)), necessitates the following new combination and partial synonymy

The name Calandrinia polyandra Bentham (Fl. Austral. 1, 172, 1863) was published as a new combination based upon Talinum polyandrum Hook. (Bot. Mag. t. 4833, i855). Hooker's name was a later homonym of T. polyandrum Ruiz & Pay. (Syst. Veg. Per. i 5, 1798) nevertheless, under the present International Code of Nomenclature, Bentham was at liberty to take up the epithet polyandrum and transfer it to another genus where the resulting combination was not preoccupied. The new combination, however, must be attributed to Bentham alone (Art. 72, the example cited), although its type remains the type of the original name.

The genus Alternanthera was proposed by ForsskMl in his Flora AegyptiacoArabica (28, 1775), where he provided what amounted to a genericospecific description. No specific epithet accompanies the generic description, however, and it is easy to overlook the casually included epithet which appears among the list of Triandria on page LIX. The epithet is contracted owing to lack of space and appears as 'achyranth'. This was interpreted as achyranthes by Christensen in his 'Index & Revision of Herb. ForsskMl' (Dansk. Bot. Arkiv. 4 (3), 13, 1922) and as achyranthoides by Hiern (Cat. Afr. P1. Welw. 4, 896, I900). Vahl (Symb. Bot. P1. Forssk. 1, 22, 1790) equated ForsskAl's plant to Illecebrum sessile L. and this identity has been generally accepted. However, as several plants have been confused with the Linnean species a comparison of the specimens in the ForsskAl and Linnean herbaria was thought advisable. I have to thank Professor K. Jessen for allowing me to borrow the ForsskAl material to make the comparison.

Summary. The genus concept represents a subjective approach to a natural phenomenon. It is difficult to disentangle the natural element, which is itself very complex, and the subject is fraught with speculation, but there is at least some justification for the following tentative propositions. i. The quasi-logarithmic distribution is remarkably constant, suggesting that evolutionary processes have operated in a reasonably uniform manner to produce a similar pattern of species groups in each family, and that these groups are recognizable as genera. 2. The Index of Diversity varies considerably, and may reflect a subjective dislike of large genera. 3. At least in the Gramineae new genera have been described at a relatively faster rate than new species have been discovered, and the level at which the genus is recognized has risen closer to that of the species. Botanical classification is commonly visualized as a dendrogram, in which the taxonomic ranks are represented by successive cross-sections at arbitrary levels. In the case of species it has gradually become apparent that this level coincides with a biological phenomenon, the closed breeding system. In practice it is often found that the closed breeding system is hard to define, that its coincidence with the morphological entities is inexact, and that the single epithet is a clumsy over-simplification. Indeed the art of the taxonomist is to attempt a reconciliation of these three aspects of the species concept. Nevertheless this approach works sufficiently well to explain why the species is universally recognized as the basic unit, and to reassure us that, in general, the rank is consistently used throughout the Angiosperms. The second main rank is the genus. It presumably has a real existence of some sort, for its origin lies in pre-Linnaean folk concepts (Bartlett, 1940); but it seems impossible to establish to what extent it is a reflection of the groupings found in nature, and to what extent it is a classificatory device in the mind of man (Walters, i961). Certainly no one has yet found any relationship with biological phenomena akin to that of the species, and we have therefore no standard by which to judge whether the rank is employed consistently. There is however one property of the generic concept upon which comparisons may be based, and that is the frequency distribution of genera of different sizes within a family.

The generic name Notopleura was first used as a sectional epithet by Bentham (1852) under Psychotria Linn. and was accepted in the same sense by Hooker (1873), who contributed the account of Rubiaceae in the Genera Plantarum. The section was based upon Psychotria hartwegii Bentham (1852), a legitimate new name for Coffea marginata Bentham** (1845), but Bentham included in it also Psychotria laevis DC. (1830) and Hooker (1873) added P. uliginosa Swartz (1788). In 1934 the section was given generic rank by Bremekamp, who stated that the type of the generic name is Notopleura uliginosa (Swartz) Bremekamp (Psychotria uliginosa Swartz). The generic name, however, is based upon "Psychotria sect. Notopleura Bentham et Hooker f." and its type species must, under the provisions of App. IV of the Code, be the species originally cited as type of the sectional epithet. Bremekamp, unfortunately, cited Bentham and Hooker as authors of the sectional epithet, and did not anywhere refer to Bentham's earlier description, or to Psychotria hartwegii as a member of it. Hooker, however, clearly referred to Bentham's description and included Psychotria hartwegii, Bentham's holotype species, in the section. There was no specific exclusion of the type by Bremekamp, and it must be assumed that his failure to mention it was an oversight. The citation of the sectional epithet must here be regarded as of paramount importance. For the purposes of Index Nominum Genericorum, the generic name Notohleura and its type species may be cited as follows

The genus Tapinopentas was published by Bremekamp in 1952 and he carefully compared it with Chamaepentas, Parapentas and Pentas, but not with Otomeria, although it seems to me to take an intermediate position between Pentas and Otomeria. At first Tapinopentas was a monotypic genus with T. cameronica as the only species. Later (1953) Verdcourt published the names T. latifolia and T. ulugurica for plants with West and East African distributions respectively. The type specimen of T. cameronica is a small-leafed plant, whilst that of T. latifolia has much bigger leaves. However, in British Cameroons during January and February 1958, i.e. in the middle of the dry season, I found commonly in shady places a plant which matches the type of T. latifolia. Beside dry footpaths and in cut grass (for example in front of the Bafut-Ngemba Rest House, Bamenda, Hepper 2083), the leaves of this species became much smaller and more nearly matched the type of T. cameronica Brem. I think it reasonable, therefore, to regard T. cameronica and T. latifolia as synonymous. We must use the name T. cameronica due to priority, which is unfortunate in two points: first, that the type specimen is untypical of the species as a whole (if that is not a fundamental contradiction!) and secondly, that the specific epithet is misleading. The Cameroons may be spelt Kamerun or Cameroun but to make the Latin adjective cameronica implies a personal name of Cameron or, perhaps, even from the Cameron Highlands in Malaya. However, I am unable to find a loophole in the Code whereby it would be possible to modify the name.