74 Writings of Edward L. Greene. [ZOE 
synonym always.a synonym’”’ plan. The fruit of Pickeringia 
seems to be so far unknown and may alter its place in 
classification. The pod is from 114 to 2% inches, 5-9-ovuled, 
2-4-seeded, flattened, constricted between the seeds, but not 
jointed, dehiscent along the ventral side; seeds with thin foli- 
aceous cotyledons, and rather abundant endosperm. 
Viscainoa Greene had long been known as Staphylea? gent- 
culata Kell. Everyone knew that it did not belong to Staphylea; 
but as only old fruiting specimens were known, no one but Mr. 
Greene ventured to give ita new name. It is one of a series of 
monotypic or restricted genera all very near Guaiacum. 
Mr. Greene divides Prunus into Cerasus, Prunus, and Amyg- 
dalus; adopts Sorbus instead of Pyrus and separates Malus. All 
this has been done before and rejected. 
The separation of Spirzea into a half dozen or more genera 
will commend itself to such botanists as appreciate very fine 
distinctions and take pleasure in a complicated synonymy. 
One of these genera, Eriogynia, deserves some notice. Mr. 
Greene says: 
‘*T had long suspected that Bongard’s paper on the vegetation 
of Sitka, read in the St. Petersburg Academy on the fourth of 
May, 1831, must have been printed and distributed before 1833; 
in which case it would antedate much of the first volume of 
Hooker’s Flora. Dr. Otto Kuntze’s careful and extensive 
researches into bibliography have brought forth the fact that 
Bongard’s paper was indeed distributed before the end of 1831. 
It is therefore inevitable that LurKEA must displace Eriogynia.”’* 
Otto Kuntze as his authority for the earlier date of Bongard 
says that, according to a statement of De Candolle, Bongard’s | 
paper had been already noticed by him in 1831. 
It has already been shown on a previous page that a large 
part of the first volume of Hooker’s Flora, Bor-Am. was quoted 
by page and plate in volumes issued in 18 31 and in 1832. 
_ It is a fact which seems to have escaped the notice of Mr. 
Greene, that contemporary botanists, even those who would 
apparently be the first to know, make no such claim; for instance, 
Walpers Repertorium ii, 53, published in 1843, quotes Bongard 
* Pitt. ii. 219. ; : 
