1920] Barnhart,—Generic Names of Ehrhart's Phytophylacium 181 
Briefly stated, the plain facts are these. Ehrhart prepared for 
distribution certain sets of exsiccatae of flowering plants, which he 
issued in “decades” under the title “ Phytophylacium." When ten 
of these decades had appeared, he published in his Beitrüge (4: 145— 
150. 1789), under the title “Index Phytophylacii Ehrhartiani,” a 
list of the hundred species contained in them. To each species is 
assigned a single name, followed by its current binary one. For 
example, the first five in the list are as follows: 
“1. Phaeocephalum. Schoenus fuscus Linn. 
2.Leucocoma. Eriophorum alpinum Linn. 
3. Orthostachys. Elymus europaeus Linn. 
4. Stygiaria. Juncus stygius Linn. 
5. Dicodon. Linnaea borealis Linn." 
At first glance these look much as if they were intended as generic 
names accompanied by the designation of a type species for each, but 
even a superficial examination of the list would suggest to almost 
any one the need of extreme caution in adopting such an interpreta- 
tion. ` For instance, it is a conspicuous fact that every species of the 
hundred is assigned a mononomial designation. Fourteen are species 
of Carex, which neither Ehrhart nor any one else has ever attempted 
to separate generically; five were species of Ophrys, five of Serapias, 
four of Bromus, and ten of Lichen, without anything to indicate that 
Ehrhart considered them generically distinct. Furthermore, the 
apparent substitution of Dicodon for Linnaea, Hippopodium for 
Buxbaumia, and Quaternella for his own Mónchia, were wholly at 
variance with the nomenclatural practice even of that day. How 
inexcusable, then, is 1t for any one to assume that these were generic 
names without even reading what Ehrhart himself has to say about 
them. 
To the list is appended this note (here freely translated): “I must 
here omit, for lack of space, the locality where each plant was col- 
lected. I have reprinted, however, my ‘nomina usualia.’ Not that 
it seems to me to be of very much consequence, since they are nothing 
but an attempt to assign to each plant a name that may be used for 
it alone, without an accompanying generic one, as suggested by 
Oeder in his ‘Einleitung zur Kriuterkenntniss’ § 141; but that a 
certain man by the name of Dahl, who is a particular friend of the 
idea, might derive some amusement from it, and that I might ac- 
comodate him.” 
Ka 
