312 MR. SPENCER MOORE ON THE 
that V. oppositifolia, Less.,is considered by everyone to be a true 
Vernonia—removed these three species to Bothriocline. That 
this step was justified is proved by the subsequent discovery of 
an undoubted Bothriocline (B. laxa, N. FE. Br.) with leaves 
both opposite and alternate. Moreover, Mr. Hiern himself 
(Cat. Welw. Plants, iii. p. 516) has assented to Dr. Hoffmann’s 
proposal. 
This leaves as the only point of distinction between Bothrio- 
cline and Erlangea the scabrous, or at most shortly barbellate, 
sete of the former and the latter’s alleged “ shortly plumose ” 
sete. As it had become advisable to ascertain the value of this 
alleged difference, I, on the friendly hint of M. Jules Poisson, 
applied to M. Barratte, conservator of the Cosson herbarium in 
Paris, for a flowering head, or at least a few sete from the pappus 
of Erlangea plumosa. The type of this consisting of but a single 
specimen with only one capitulum, M. Barratte was, of course, 
unable to comply with my larger request; but he very kindly 
sent me four sete from the pappus. These I have carefully 
examined, and I find that instead of being “shortly plumose,” 
the said sete are only barbellate; and the same remark applies 
to a second species of Erlangea (E. Schinzii, O. Hoffm.), of 
which there is a fine example at the British Museum, In fact 
one finds in the pappus of Bothriocline and Erlangea a complete 
series ranging between scabrid sete on the one hand and barbel- 
late setz on the other, just as one finds in Vernonia itself, 
although there are species of Vernonia with pappus-sete even 
more strongly barbellate than are those of E. plumosa and £. 
Schinzii. Under these circumstances, it is clear that the two 
genera can no longer be kept apart, and, as Erlangea has the 
priority, that Bothriocline must disappear. 
My own genus Stephanolepis (Journ. Bot. xxxviii. 1900, p. 153) 
must also be suppressed. At the time of proposing it, I held 
the original view about Bothriocline, which I was disposed to 
restrict to species having numerous smallish eymose capitula, 
and opposite or opposite and alternate leaves, while the other 
species referred to the genus by Dr. Hoffmann should either, 
I thought, be removed back to Vernonia or constitute a genus 
by themselves. But on reflection this was seen to involve the 
creation of too many genera. 
I may add that Dr. Kunze, while pointing out (Rev. Gen. Pl. 
pars i. p. 348) that Hrlangea plumosa was first called by Schultz 
