130 Rhodora [JuLy 
unidentifiable, as in the case of Delphinium carolinianum Walt., which 
has been a nomen dubium since its description and is likely to remain 
so, the type consisting merely of a naked scrap of stem three inches 
long. But in most cases, with the help of the indications given by 
Michaux and Elliott, it is possible to identify Walter’s species very 
definitely. 
The labels attached to the specimens are, as already mentioned, 
rather unsatisfactory, many of them bearing only the generic name, 
and there are frequent evidences of confusion in the collocation of label 
and specimen. What I take to be Walter’s own handwriting is shown 
on a label without specimen of Spiraea trifoliata, and on the labels 
of Syntherisma villosa and Vincetoxicum; but most of the remaining 
labels are in another hand, which from its agreement with some 
writing on the title page of the volume may be affirmed with consider- 
able certainly to be that of John Fraser himself, into whose keeping 
the collection passed, presumably on the death of Walter. Mr. James 
Britten, who has examined the evidence, agrees with me that the 
authorship of these handwritings may be regarded as practically estab- 
lished. Most of the errors in association of labels and specimen, it 
should be stated, are in the case of tickets in the handwriting of Fraser. 
Although thirty-two new genera were indicated by Walter, only 
four! (Syntherisma, Frasera, Amsonia, Vincetoxicum) were actually 
named; for all the others the same pseudonym Anonymos was used. 
By far the greater part of these were really new at the time, and nearly 
all were provided with names by J. F. Gmelin three years later in his 
(thirteenth) edition of Linnaeus’ Systema; but most of Gmelin's 
names were long disused and have been replaced by others now 
sustained as nomina conservanda by the Vienna Congress. The 
specific names used by Walter under his twenty-eight genera called 
Anonymos are today kept up where valid (except in a few cases hith- 
erto overlooked), which seems the proper treatment to pursue with 
them, although it might be assailed with a show of justice in instances 
where the identical name is given to two or more species in different 
parts of the Flora. Thus there are four plants called Anonymos 
aquaticus, two called A. repens, and six called A. caroliniensis? It 
1 A comparison of Walter's description of his Rajania (R. ovata Walt. = Brunnichia 
cirrhosa Gaertn., published in the same year) with that of Linnaeus is sufficient to 
prove that the former was not intended by Walter as a new genus. 
: It may be well to call attention to the fact that this name was always spelt ''caro- 
liniensis" by Walter, who should be followed in this respect, although most authors 
who have adopted his names have written it ‘‘carolinensis.”’ 
