| —adjudged tbe priority to Ecklon’s names, under the arbitrary pretext that, | 
60 FLORA OF SOUTH AFRICA. 
LEGUMINOS&.* 
1. Calpurnia lasiogyne, E. Meyer ! Comm. Pl. Afr. 1, p. 3. 
In sylvis circa port Natal (V. c.) Jul. 1839, Krauss n. 325. 
2. Cyclopia latifolia, DC. prodr. 2, p. 101, n. 3. E. Meyer 
Comm. p. 3. Benth. in Annalen des Wiener Mus. 2, p. 67. 
Ad latera mont. Baviaanskloof, alt. 1000/ (IV. B. b.) Dec. 
1838. Krauss n. 934. 
3. C. genistoides, R. Br. DC. 1. c. n. 1. Benth. l. c. (non E. 
Mey.) C.galioides, E. Meyer! l. c. p. 4. (non DC.) Ad. 
* It has been generally and justly regretted that the numerous new Legu- 
minose discovered by Drège, Ecklon and Zeyher, have been described and. 
published, nearly at the same time, in two separate works: “ Ernesti H. F. 
Meyer Commentariorum de Plantis Africe Australioris, Vol. I., fasc. V, Lipsie, — 
1835," and * Ecklon et Zeyher Enumeratio Plantarum Africe Australis extra- — 
tropice, Pars II., Jan. 1836 ;" from which circumstance unavoidably resulted — 
the serious inconvenience that a great number of identical species figure in each | 
of these works under different names. To point out those which are synonyms, | 
Dr. Walpers has taken the pains of comparing Dreége's plants with those of 
Ecklon contained in the Royal Herbarium of Berlin (see his paper in the Lin- 
nea, vol. 13, p. 449, seq.) ; but unfortunately he has only increased the mass of 
unnecessary synonyms, having—contrary to the established rule and principle 
although the first part of Meyer's Commentaries bear upon the title-page the 
date of 1835, they were published ‘ several months" later than Ecklon’s 
Enum. pars IL, which is dated January 1836. We have no means for ascer- 
taining whether this be exactly true, and, if so, for what cause or reason Dr. 
Meyer’s work bears an earlier date; nor is this of the least importance, since, 
according to the generally adopted law (see De Candolle, tliéor. élém., ed. 2, P» - 
~ 982, art. 6) with which we perfectly agree, the right of priority must depend | 
S upon the date printed on the title-page; and therefore we feel ourselves bound 
to retain Dr. Meyer's names, his work being dated prior to that of Ecklon. | 
i Moreover, in a case of this nature, where two books have been published on | 
the same ‘subject nearly at the same time, the intrinsic valne of the works | 
ought to be taken into account, adjudging the preference to that in which the 
subject has been most scientifically treated. We cannot conclude these remarks | 
without expressing our surprise at the manner in which Dr. Walpers speaks on 
the matter (l. c. p. 451), tending to raise suspicion against the candour of Dre 
Meyer; a behaviour, the injustice of which has already been shown by Prof. 
von Schlechtendal (Linnea, vol. 14, p. 706); but which, though offending to the 
feelings of every one who is acquainted with Dr. Meyer's real character, vill, 
we trust, do less harm to the latter than to the credit of its own author. 
