406 
precedence of place in Adanson’s “ Familles des Plantes” and is accepted by Baillon 
in his “ Histoire” and by Pax in Engler-Prantl’s « Natiirliche Pflanzenfamilien.” 
5. Necker’s name for this genus is satisfactorily identified by the description; I 
have been unable to discover any reason under any set of principles which really 
warrants its rejection. The authors of the London Catalogue have admitted oretta 
proposed by him, Why not Sfzesia ? 
6. Poterium L. is considered, and in my opinion correctly, by European authors, 
as monotypic, including only P. sfinosum L. of southern Europe. : 
7. This is a case in which the London Catalogue is right, and the American list 
wrong, under all rules, and we should be grateful for the correction. The citations 
are MARIANA Hill, Veg. Syst. 4: 19. 1762. Mariana Marianum (L.) Hill, Hort. 
Kew. 61. 1769. Hill’s use of duplicate binomials is the earliest which has come to 
my attention; he proposed a number of others in the same publication. 
8. Speculavia Heist. was taken up by no subsequent author until employed by AL 
phonse DeCandolle in 1830. The 1753 “starting point” excludes it. Meanwhile 
Legouzia had been published and the genus defined, : 
9-10. In adopting Statice L, for S. Armeria L, and its allies, and Limo- 
nium Adans. for Statice Limonium and its congeners, the American list returns 
to the use of Statice in the “Species Plantarum” of 1753, in which the genus Ar- 
meria was not taken up. The use of these generic names, as adopted in the London 
Catalogue, dates only from their publication by Willdenow, 1809. 
11. Elodea was regarded by the American committee as a homonym of Elodes 
Adans, 1763. I have recently discussed this point (Science, n. S., 2: 5- 1895), 
showing that PAz/otria Raf., has a few months’ priority over Udora. It will be 
noted that both lists reject Anvacharis. 
12, The validity of publication of Du Petit Thouars’ genera of Orchidaceae has 
been questioned, but also ably defended. I have not had access to his paper. 
13. There can be no doubt as to Persoon’s intention in proposing the name 
Gyrostachys ( Gyrostachis in original), as he refers to Ophrys spiralis L., to illus- 
trate it; this species is included in Spiranthes by recent authors. 4 
14. There can be no possibility of mistaking Salisbury’s meaning in the publica 
tion of Feramium, for he bases it on one of the same species cited by R. Brown under 
Goodyera a year later. It is true that Salisbury published no description of the 
the genus; but many other widely accepted genera rest on just this form of pub- 
lication, 
15. My remarks under Capmoides apply equally well to this. Perhaps the com 
pilers of the London Catalogue objected to the termination odes, but they have good 
authority for its use in the publication by Benthan and Hooker (Genera, 2: 301) of 
Mniodes A. Gray, and this is also accepted in the Kew Index. 
16, Gmelin’s name antedates the first edition of « Species Plantarum” and was 
not again used until after the publication of Sevastana. 
_ 17. I have not seen the original publication of Fabricius, but Famicularta and 
Glyceria are cited as equivalent by Kuntze. 
18, Both lists thus reject Aspidium Sw. 1800, It should be added that the Lon 
don Catalogue recognizes Polystichum Roth, and Lastraca Presi, as genera. 
The percentage of difference in the two lists is 4.09 per cent. 
