









■ 



























! ■ 



R 

 S 





■ 



' 



476 MB. JOHN BALL ON THE 



from Port Sta. Elena, Cape Eairweather, and Port Desire, bat it 

 has not been found on the west side of the Andes. 



CBUCIFEBJ3. 



* 



5. Vesicabia mendocina, Phil, in Linncea, xxxiii. 12, =V. 

 andicola, Gill M8S. in Herb. Kew. = Y. montevidensis, Bichl. 

 in Flor. Bras. xiii. 802, tab. lxvii.=V. arctiea, Hook. Bot. Misc. 

 iii. 138, et Barn, in G. Gay, Fl. GUI. i. 161, non Richardson, Bot. 

 App. Franklin's Journey, 15, et Rook. Fl. Bor.-Amer. t. i. " On 

 the edge of table-land, sandy or stony ground. Native name Aleli. 



W. Andrews. There has been much confusion as to the name 

 of this plant and as to its geographical distribution. It was first 

 collected by Gillies on the lower slopes of the Andes near Men- 

 doza, and sent to Sir William Hooker with the manuscript name 

 V. andicola. It was, however, supposed to be identical with the 

 Vesicaria arctica of .Richardson, and in the Hookerian herbarium, 

 now incorporated with the general collection at Kew, was laid 

 on the same sheet with the North- American plant. Other spe- 

 cimens from the same neighbourhood were sent by Cruckshank3, 

 which are incorrectly marked Chili on the sheet in Kew Herb. 

 {vide Hooker, loc. cit.). The same plant was collected by Tweedie 

 in North Patagonia, aad by Sello in Uruguay. Eichler described 

 Sello's plant under the name V. montevidensis in the part of the 

 f Flora Brasiliensis ' which appeared in December 1865 j and in 

 his ' Symbol® ad Floram Argentinam,' p. 16, Grisebaeh, recog- 

 nizing the identity of Eichler's plant with that of Gillies, adopted 

 the name V. montevidensis and rejected the name V. andicola, 

 because the plant appears to grow only on the lower slopes ot 

 the Andes. In describing the plants collected by M. Claraz 

 (Journ. Linn. Soc. xxi. 212) I called the plant V. andicola, GKlLi 

 because the objection stated by Grrisebaeh is certainly invalid. 

 But I did not advert to the fact that V. andicola is merely a 

 manuscript name never published, and that apart from a single 

 sheet iu Kew Herbarium, there is no way of identifying it. 

 Further than this, I was not then aware that early in 1864 

 Philippi, who had received specimens from the neighbourhood of 

 Mendoza, published a correct description of it in the ' Linnaea ' 

 under the name V. mendocina, which name, under the law of 

 priority of publication, it must now retain. 



The plant has a wide rauge on the east side of the Andes, but 







■ 



















-j 



