184 Rhodora [OCTOBER 
differentiation, in 1764 redefining! Nymphaea to include only N. alba 
and clearly to exclude N. lutea. This interpretation.of Nymphaea, to 
cover only N. alba and its congeners, was also indorsed by Jussieu ? 
sixteen years before the publication of Castalia by Salisbury.’ It is 
thus clear that Nymphaea as emended by Linnaeus himself must stand 
for the later-published Castalia. 
It is unfortunate, however, that, although we can go back with 
assurance to the long-established and most satisfactory use of the name 
Nymphaea, we cannot correctly take up again for the cow lilies the 
almost equally traditional name, Nuphar. To be sure, in his discus- 
sion of the subject Conard draws the comforting conclusion that 
“Smith was right, therefore, in retaining Nymphaea L. emend., for 
the white waterlilies, and restoring the old prelinnean name Nuphar 
for the cow-lily group. For this latter group had not previously 
received a valid generic name in postlinnean times.” But, although 
citing Mr. James Britten’s article * in which attention was definitely 
directed to L. C. Richard's name Nymphozanthus ? and its clear prior- 
ity over Nuphar, Conard, it would seem, quite overlooked this essen- 
tial fact, that Nymphozanthus was well published many months before 
Smith's genus Nuphar. Nuphar, as shown by Britten, did not appear 
until the very last of the year 1808 or the beginning of 1809, while 
Nymphozanthus was published in May, 1808. On page 63 of his 
Analyse du Fruit Richard spelled the name Nymphozanthus, on 
page 68, where it was formally proposed for the genus, he spelled it 
Nymphosanthus, and on page 103, in the index, he again spelled it 
withaz. "That the second spelling may be considered a typographical 
error is evident from the fact that in his later publication on the 
genus, in 1811, Richard formally made the combination Nympho- 
zanthus vulgaris? for Nymphaea lutea L. There seems no need, then, 
to perpetuate the spelling Nymphosanthus as some have done nor to 
change it to Nymphoxanthus as is done by Post & Kuntze? nor to 
Nymphosanthos as 1s done by Britten. That the name, however 
spelled, clearly antedates Nuphar has been sufficiently demonstrated. 
! L. Gen. Pl. ed. 6, 264 (1764). 
? Juss. Gen. Pl. 68 (1789). 
3 Salisb. in Kón. & Sims, Ann. Bot. ii. 71 (1805). 
4J. Britten, Journ. Bot. xxvi. 7 (1888). 
5L. C. Richard, Anal. du Fruit, 63, 68, 103 (May, 1808). 
* Smith in Sibth. & Sm. Fl. Graec. Prodr. i. 361 (late 1808 or early 1809). 
? L. C. Richard, Ann. Mus. Par. xvii. 230 — reprint 8 (1811). 
8 Post & Kuntze, Lex. Gen. Pl. 393 (1904). 
