CRESCENTIA, FAUMENTIERA, AND KIGELIA. 271 



same plant under three different names, and under two genera. But 

 this is easily explained, by the fact that De CandoUe established Par- 

 mentiera solely upon a figure of Mozino and the description of Her- 

 nandez. He never saw perfect specimens of C. aculeata, H.B.K., nor 

 had he a specimen of C, edulis, Desv., at his disposal, but merely 

 knew the latter from the brief description given of it by Desvaux. 

 Three other plants, formerly associated with Crescentia^ have already been 

 referred to their proper genera by De CandoUe and others : C. edulk, 

 Moz., to Parmentiera ediilis, DC, 0. jaamimides. Lam., to Gardenia 

 chisicsfolia , Jacq., and C. pinnata, Jacq.,to Kigelia pimiata, De Cand. 



De CandoUe has enumerated (Prod. ix. 244) only one species of 

 Pannentiera (P, edulis, De Cand.) ; and I have added (Botany of 



leafa. Seem.), 



^fi 



ift 



good ; P, aeuleata^ Seem,, is, I am now convinced, identical with P. 

 edulis; so that the genus consists at present of two species, both of 

 which are very distinct from each other. P. edulis, De Cand., has 

 branches furnished with thorns, occasionally simple leaves, and a tuber- 

 culate fruit, P. cereifera. Seem., the famous Candle-tree of the Isthmus 

 of Panama, is quite unarmed, has always compound leaves, and bears 

 a fruit the surface of which is quite smooth. As synonyms of it I 

 regard, besides the P. aculeata. Seem., already mentioned, Crescentia 

 oculeata, H.B.K., C. edulis, Desv., and, upon the authority of C. B, 

 HeUer (Reisen in Mexiko, p. 414), C. mus^carpa^ Zaldivar. 



De CandoUe has enumerated (Prodr. ix. 247) but one species of Zi*- 

 gelia^ viz. K. piunata, De Cand. ; adding to it, as synonyms, Crescentia 

 pinnata, Jacq., Tancecium pinnatum, Willd., and Tripinnaria Africana^ 

 SprengL, — an arrangement to which I fully consent. Decaisne has, 

 since the publication of the ' Prodromus,' described as a second species 



^thiopica (D 



Afi 



463), uniting with the latter the old Bignonia Africana^ Lam. (Diet. 

 vol. i. 424), which De CandoUe, at p. 166 of his *Prodromus,' enume- 

 rates amongst the doubtful Bignonias. A careful comparison of the 

 various descriptions and specimens of these three supposed species has 

 led me to the conclusion that all three are but one and the same 

 species, the original K.pivmtay upon which the genus was founded. 



The genus Sotor of Fenzl (the name of which is an adoption of the ^ 



