ss * 
A REVISION OF THE GENUS CAPSICUM. 55 
Tournefort in 1700, eighteen by Miller in 1731, though in 
1771, after the binomial system had come into use, he gave 
but ten specific names. Linnaeus in the first edition of 
his Species Plantarum (1753) records two species, and in 
his Mantissa (1767) recognizes two additional ones. In 
the fourteenth edition of his Systema Vegetabilium, edited 
by Murray (1789), one new species is given, and in the 
Willdenow edition of the Species Plantarum (1797) still 
another is added. Romer and Schultes, in their edition of 
the Systema Vegetabilium (1819), add what they consider 
fifteen good and three doubtful species to those already de- 
scribed since the time of Linnaeus. Of these fifteen, only 
one was given for the first time by them, all of the others 
having been previously named by various botanists since 
Willdenow’s edition. In 1832 Fingerhuth recognized 
twenty-five accepted species, together with seven requiring 
further examination, and twenty-eight botanical varieties, 
three of the species and most of the varieties being named 
by him. In 1846 Sendtner recorded ten species and numer- 
ous varieties as occurring in Brazil alone, he having named 
seven of the species. In1852,Dunal recorded fifty accepted 
species, of which eleven were described for the first time, 
together with many varieties, and eleven species requiring 
further examination, besides three doubtful ones. 
This was the last revision of the genus, and but three 
new species have since been described. Altogether about 
ninety specific names have been given, of which the Index 
Kewensis recognizes fifty-four as good. Notwithstanding 
this large number, modern authorities generally believe 
that there are only a few. Professor Asa Gray, in a 
letter to Dr. Sturtevant under date of Nov. 2, 1887, 
expresses a fancy that there are only two species in 
the genus.* Dr. Sturtevant, who had already made 
a considerable study of the genus, expressed the opinion 
that the published species in a majority of cases were only 
forms, and that when these were reduced to synonyms 
* Agricultural Science 2:1. 1888. 
