192 MR. G. BENTHAM ON EUPHOBBIACE.E. 



knowledge in any English ones, and which I have never seen. 

 Although this name may claim the right of priority and may have 

 been correctly defined, yet it has not only become obsolete through 

 general and long-continued neglect, but its composition is defec- 

 tive; for it appears to have been founded on the French popular 

 name Tournesol, most generally applied to the sunflower (Helian* 

 thus annuus), and scarcely used for the Chrozofhora except in the 

 case of the " teinture de tournesol." 



There are some generic names given by the earlier post-Lin- 

 nean botanists and frequently neglected, about which there may 

 be some doubt as to the propriety of their restoration. Aublets 

 names were generally altered by Schreber and by Necker, be- 

 cause they objected to their being founded on local appellations, 

 an objection now considered mistaken, and Aublet's names have 

 been properly revived ; but with Loureiro' s the case has been 

 somewhat different. Loureiro had but few books to consult; his 

 characters are often insufficient ; he published no plates ; and the 

 few specimens preserved in the British Museum are sometimes 

 incorrectly named. A considerable number of his genera are to 

 this day absolute puzzles ; others have been evidently mistaken, or 

 their identification, arrived at through careful study, is attended 

 with some uncertainty. They have therefore, until very recently, 

 been usually neglected ; and their present restoration is adding 

 largely to an overloaded synonymy. And yet, w T here Loureiro s 

 characters are unmistakable, one cannot absolutely object to the 

 restoration of his names, however great the temporary inconve- 

 nience. It is hard to repudiate the well-known Bottler* ; but 

 Loureiro's MaUotus having been once substituted for it in the 

 1 Prodromus,' we must submit, as it w r as originally well defined 

 and there is no defect in its composition. There appears, how- 

 ever, to be no reason for replacing this again by Echinus, on the 

 supposed ground of priority from being printed on a previous 

 page of the same work. The whole w T ork was published at the 

 same time ; and there is therefore no priority of one page over 

 another. MaUotus was restored by Mueller before Echinus was 

 taken up by Baillon, and therefore has so far the right of priority. 

 MaUotus is correctly defined by Loureiro, which Echinus is not, 

 if the two are Teally founded on the same species, as asserted by 

 Mueller. This, however, is very doubtful. Loureiro was too 

 much of a botanist to found two genera upon the same plant 

 (except, perhaps, where he had failed to match the two sexr* 



j 



