153 
in Vol. I, p. 263, of the Biologia Centrali-Americana, enumerates 
Sesbania longifolia DC., with its synonym ALschynomene longifolia 
Ortega, but refers, for an example, to Parry and Palmer’s No. 209, 
from Central Mexico, which is beyond question Daubentonia. No 
mention whatever is made of Cavanilles’ plate, and we are forced 
to conclude that Mr. Hemsley imagined the two species to be 
identical. Dr. Watson appreciated this error, and remarks * “Ses- 
ama Cavanillesa Watson, Daubentonia longifolia DC., * * * No. 
209, Parry and Palmer belongs to this species, not to S. longifolia 
DC., which, according to the description is very different.” The 
Index Kewensis makes matters worse, as follows: 
AEschynomene longifolia Cav. Icon. 4: 8. t. 316.= Piscidia longi- 
Solia. 
AEschynomene longs boag Orteg. Hort. Mat. Dec. 9: 70.=Ses- 
bania Cavanillesit. 
This is most remarkable when we recollect the fact that both 
the synonyms cited belong exclusively to the AZschynomeng 
of Cavanilles, not to that of Ortega, which should, of course, have 
been referred to Sesbania longifolia DC., a name admitted by 
the Index in another place, as that of a valid pecies. 
In Coulter's Botany of Texas+ appears a very good diagnosis 
of our plant under Watson’s name, Sesbania Cavanillesi. It is 
there quoted as “ abundant on the lower Rio Grande and also 
near San Antonio.”’ Specimens in the National Hebarium are as 
follows: Texas, Dr. Schlottman; Schott, 1853, Bravo del Norte ; 
J. F. Joor, 1875, Harrisburg ; Berlandier, no. 3132; Palmer, San 
Antonio, 1880, no, 278; Harvard, 1884; Nealley, 1889, no. 76; 
Florida, Pensacola, Curtiss, no. 590. 
Specimens of Sesbania longifolia DC., are represented as fol-. 
lows: Guadalajara, Jalisco, Mexico, Palmer, no. 237, 1886; 
Pringle, no. 4738, 1894. These specimens are instantly recog- 
nizable as true Sesbanias, having linear torulose legumes and 
ovate-lanceolate leaflets. ‘ss 
It is, therefore, quite evident that whether these two species 
are regarded as congeneric or are separated, one of them must 
take a name other than /ongifolia, which belongs, by right of pri- 
* Proc. Am. Acad. 17: 342. 1882. 
+ Contr. Nat. Herb. 2: ee 1891. 
Bis 2h 
