I, 



\ 



SPECIES OF MESEMBRYANTHEMUM. 107 . 



either the description o£ M. keve^ Alton or that of Thunberg, Therefore, 

 for the present I think tlio following references nmst be excluded from the 

 synonymy of M, Tluinhergn^ viz. : — AA lawe^ Sender in Fl. Cap. voL ii- 

 p. 408 : Bcrger, Mesemb. p. 13G, fig. 24, II (copied from Salm-Dyck). 

 M. duhinm, Haw. Misc. p. 39 (1803); Synop. p. 231 ; & Itev. p. 110, not 

 of Obs. p. 471, which is Odoutospermum j}ygm(VMm^ 0, Iloffm. : Ait, Hort. 

 Kew, ed. 2, vol. iii. p. 222 : Salm-Dyck, Mesemb, § 15, fig. 4 (not § IG as 

 quoted by Berger, nor t. G as quoted by Sondcr), M, decijnens^ Uaw. Rev. 



p. 110 (1821> 



It should bo noted that the plant collected on the shore below Shmg Kop, 

 on the Capo Peninsula, by Wollcy Do.l (no. 3144), and distributed under the 

 name of J/. Iceve, Thunb., is scarcely likely to be the same as the Sundays 

 River plant described by Thunberg, for apart froin locality the label with 

 the Slano- Kop plant bears the record that its leaves are cylindric, whilst 

 those of M. Itpve^ Thunb. are flattish above 5 and it is certainly not M. duhhun, 

 Haw.^ as the epidermis of the leaves is totally different in structure— a 

 character that has not been taken into consideration by monographers. Tlie 

 Slano- Kop plant should be compared with J7. dissimile^ N. E. Br.j see p. 105. 



DIGITIFLORA. 



]\I. ACUMIXATU3I, Ilaw, Extraordinary confusion seems to have been 

 made by modern authors concerning this phmt, as Salm-Dyck and those 

 ■ followiufT him mistook anotlier spt^cies (see J/, nothunij N. B. Bi-.) for it, and 

 then fio'ured the real M. acuminatum under the names of ]\L sulcatum and 

 M. fiexuosum, wliich certainly represent one species only^ and are ngnin 

 wron(>" determinations. As in these errors subsequent authors have followed, 

 him I here "Ive the synonymy of the four species in question (see p. 135)- 

 As Salm-Dvck has published (under w^rong names) two good figures and 

 descriptions of M. acuminatum^ a description here is unnecessary ; the 

 following is its correct synonymy : 



M, ACUMINATUM^ Ilaw. iu PJuL Mag. 1824, p. 42G : DC. Prodr. voh iii. 

 p. 445: Don, Gen. Syst. voL iii. p, 147^ not of other authors, 

 M. sulcatum^ Salm-Dyck, Mesemb. § 44, fig. 1 ; Sonder in FL Cap. 

 vol.ii^p. 432 : Berger, Mesemb. p. 119, not of Haworth. M.Jlexuosum^ 

 ' Salm-Dyck, Mesemb. § 44, fig. 7 : Sonder in Fl. Cap. voh ii. p. 433 : 

 Bergcr, Mesemb. p. 122, not of Haworth. 

 South Africa. Locality unknown. Introduced by Bowie about the year 



1823. 



In the Kew Herbarium is preserved an original coloured drawing of this 

 species^ labelled "J/, acuminatum. Jan. 21st, 1826," which well agrees with 

 Salm-Dyck's figures named ^1:/* sulcatum and M.ffiwuosum above quoted, but 

 not with the figure of the plant he has named j\L acuminatum. The tufts of 



' ^^ 



