follows. In recent works the name has usually been 
applied to a group of forms not closely allied to the original 
Eranthemum of Linnaeus. A century ago R. Brown 
pointed out that the Hvanthemum of Linnaeus in the Flora 
Zeylanica and in all the editions of that author’s Genera 
Plantarum is a Ceylon species allied to Vahl’s Justicia 
nervosa and J. rosea (Hranthemum nervosum and E. roseum). 
To this Ceylon plant Linnaeus, in his Species Plantarum, 
owing to some confusion of synonymy, gave the inappro- 
priate name /. capense. Roxburgh, like Brown, had also 
taken up Hranthemum in the sense of the Flora Zeylanica, 
describing as EL. montanum the plant which Linnaeus had 
already termed LE. capense. 
The conception of Eranthemum as a genus based on 
E. capense, Linn. (E. montanum, Roxb.), was accepted until 
1865, when T. Anderson revised the Indian Acanthaceae. 
Anderson, some years before, had established a genus 
Daedalacanthus on a Ceylon plant which he knew to be 
EE. montanum, Roxb., but did not know to be also the species 
(E. capense, Linn.) on which Eranthemum, Linn., was | 
based. When, in his subsequent revision, Anderson with 
good reason broke up into two genera the incongruous 
ageregate of forms till then included in Kranthemum, he 
placed in Daedalacanthus all the congeners of D. montanus, 
T. And. (£. capense, Linn.), on which Eranthemum, Linn., 
had been founded, and retained the name Lyanthemum for 
the residual species none of which had been included in | 
Evranthemum by Linnaeus. = 
The confusion thereby created was pointed out in 1883 
by Radlkofer who, in reverting to the usage of Brown, 
~ Roxburgh and Linnaeus himself as regards Hranthemum 
proper, proposed for the new Lranthemum, T. And. (not of 
Linn.), the name Pseuderanthemum. This rectification was 
overlooked at the time, but has since been repeated by 
Lindau. 
The error has mainly been limited to descriptive works; 
in horticultural literature Anderson’s separation of the 
genera has not always been recognised, and the name 
FEranthemum is still in common use for the congeners of 
the plant now described. This separation is nevertheless 
necessary, for while the two genera have somewhat similar 
corollas—a circumstance which may explain their treatment 
