142 DR. GRISEBACH ON COUTOUBEA VOLUBILIS. 
Bentham's views on the species to be distinguished, but merely in 
the interpretation of Aublet's figure. In Lamarck's Illustration 
there is a confusion between C. spicata and C. ramosa; for his 
figure (t. 79) designated C. alba, which is a translation of Aublet’s 
French name of his C. spicata, belongs to C. ramosa, Aubl.; but, 
bad as it is, this figure was by mistake quoted in the * Prodromus’ 
under both species. 
The genus Apophragma I established (as was indeed not ad- 
visable) from Aublet's description and figure (t. 26. f. 2, 9, 10), 
exhibiting exserted stamens and a * stigmate à deux lames larges 
et aigues:;" at the time of its publication I wanted sufficient ma- 
terials to verify this structure. But as the habit is exactly the 
same as in the common plant designated Schiibleria tenuifolia, Don, 
(Benth. !), and identical with my own specimens of Apophragma, 
Aublet’s analysis is probably erroneous : hence Bentham correctly 
reduced Apophragma to Schiibleria. Yn his paper there are, how- 
ever, several errors (partly typographical ones) with regard to 
Aublet’s figures. I had not taken, as he presumed, the characters 
of Apophragma from t. 26. f. 4-7, which belong to Schultesia, but 
from f. 9, 10 (both correctly quoted by Aublet), and the “ appen- 
diculate filaments” occur in Aublet’s description: f. 1, again, or 
Exacum guianense, is Schultesia ; f. 2, E. tenuifolium, or Schübleria 
(Benth.). 
Reichertia was separated by Karsten from Schultesia on account 
of its bidentate filaments: such a structure exists in Sch. steno- 
phylla itself, the first-published species of the genus, and is evi- 
dently of no generic importance. 
Erythrea, Cicendia, Microcala, Xestea, and Orthostemon are 
mere artificial distinctions. From its twisted anthers, Erythrea 
might be preserved, as it is; though Æ. quitensis, Kth., during 
anthesis, is devoid of torsion, or shows only a single slight au- 
fractuosity, but it is more or less twisted in the dry state after- 
wards. The knowledge of the species of Erythrea, chiefly of the 
American ones, is now less satisfactorily settled than at the time 
of my publication. Its later edition, contained in DeCandolle’s 
* Prodromus,’ the proofs of which could not be corrected by myself, 
is often obscured by misprints, which may usually be improved 
by comparison with my monograph and the article on Gentiane? 
in Hooker's Fl. Bor.-Amer. For instance, there was no Æ. tenui- 
folia, Gr., in my manuscript, this name belonging, as var. y, to the 
preceding E. linarifolia, as was to be seen fromthe form of its 
diagnosis, though overlooked by subsequent authors. Dr. Schlech- 
p— TEUER 
