or THE PERirTIAJ!^ ANDES. 41 



differs from both in not having glochidiate hairKS on the fruit, and 

 from the latter, amoug other points, by the umbels being on 

 moderately long pedmicles. Other differences may be pointed 

 out between my specimens and B. incana^ Euiz & Pav., and B, 

 pidchella^ Wedd, ; but I am inclined to think that both of these 

 will also be ranked as varieties of -S. lohcda, 



Obeomyrbhis ai^dicola, Bndl. Gen. p. 787*. Chicla! 



Apitjm leptophtlltjm, F. Jfz^^ZZ. =Helosciadium leptophyllum, 

 i>C.=Ammi leptophyllum, i. Upper valley of the Eimac near 



Matucana ! 



Dauctjs toeiltoides, do. Upper valley of the Himac, about 



10,000 feet ! 



CAPRIEOLIAGEiE. 



SAMBUcrs PEKUTiAJS'A, -ff. B. K. Here and there in the upper 

 valley of the Eimac, extending to a height of above 13,000 feet, 

 but possibly planted at the higher stations ! It forms a tree 

 from 20 to 80 feet in height, and about a foot in diameter. 



* I liave here bhndly followed the autliority of Eiidlicher, sanctioned by that 

 of tlie authors of the * Genera Plantarum ;' but I must remark that in this case 

 the first has committed, and the second have sanctioned, an error in nomencla- 

 ture, having apparently overlooked a note in the fourth volume of De Candolle's 

 ' Prodromus/ p. 229, wherein the facts are clearly stated. The Andean plant, 

 which is the representative of a group of forms peculiar to the southern hemi- 

 sphere, was described by Kunth in the lifth volume of the great work of Hum- 

 boldt and Bonpland, ' Nova Genera et Specie,^,' &c,, which was published, in 1821 , 

 under the name Myrrhis andicola. In the same year Lagasca, rightly regarding 

 the plant as the type of a new genus, published his description of the genus Col- 

 dasia, and in a letter to A. P. do OandoUe, published by the latter in the col- 

 lection of his botanical dissertations, named the plant CaJdasia andicola. In 

 preparing his great work on the genera of plants, Endlicher found that, long 

 before Lagasca, Willdenow had given the name Caldasia to a Mexican plant 

 forming a distinct genus of Polemoniacea}. Concluding that Lagasca's genus 

 Caldasia could not be retained, he gave to it the now name OrcomyrrJiis, Eut 

 in so doing he overlooked the fact, pointed out by De CandoUe, that Willdenow's 

 genus Caldasia was identical with Bonplandia of Cavanilles, published seven 

 years earlier ; and that in consequence the generic name Caldasia had fallen 

 to the ground when Lagasca applied it to the plant from the Andes, which should, 

 according to the established rules of nomenclature, be termed Caldasia andicola^ 

 ' Lag. The priority of Cavanilles's generic name Bo7iplandia over Willdenow's 

 Caldasia is recognized by Benlham and Hooker in Gen. Plant, ii, p. 824. 



