REVISION OF ANACYCLUS 87 



daisy as the principal component of the genus. Vaillant (1719), for example, changed the concept 

 of Cotula entirely by applying the generic name almost exclusively to the widespread South 

 African species, now known as Cotula turbinata L.: 'Cotula flore albo. Cotula africa, calyce 

 eleganti caesio'. He included other related taxa, such as the weedy C. coronopijolia L., in yet 

 another genus, Ananthocyclus (1719 : 289); but he correctly considered that the Valencian daisy 

 'Cotula flore luteo radiate' was not congeneric with Cotula and created a new genus Santolinoides 

 to accommodate the misplaced species (1719 : 312). Like so many of the eighteenth-century 

 genera, Santolinoides was an heterogeneous assemblage consisting of four distinct species, 

 which are currently assigned to diverse genera, including Anthemis, Cotula and Anacyclus. 



Linnaeus, in his Hortus Cliffortianus(\131) and Species Plantarum (1753), augmented Vaillant's 

 modifications by uniting his two genera Cotula and Ananthocyclus into a wider concept of 

 Cotula ; in creating a new genus Anacyclus, he produced something akin to Vaillant's Santolinoides 

 and Tournefort's original Cotula. 



Linnaeus's definitions of Anacyclus were the same in both the first and fifth editions of Genera 

 Plantarum (1737, 1754) and seemed to rely on Tournefort's corolla and cypsela characters as 

 diagnostic features : 



' . . . Cor. Composita radiata: Corollulae Hermaphroditae numerosae, in disco. Femininae 

 quinque ad decem, in ambitu, disco vix altiores. Propria Hermaphroditi infundibuliformes: limbo 

 quinquefido, patulo. Feminea ligulato: tubo compressor limbo ovato, integro . . .Sem Herma- 

 phroditis solitaria, oblonga, . . . ala latissima utrinque membranacea, apice emarginata. . . .' This 

 description served admirably to distinguish Anacyclus from other members of the 'Syngenesia 

 polygamia superflua' such as Anthemis: ' . . . Cor. Composita radiata: corollulae Hermaphroditae 

 tubulosae, numerosae, in disco convexo. Femininae ligulatae, in radio. Propria Hermaphroditi 

 infundibuliformis; limbo quinquedentato, erecto. Feminae ligulata, lanceolata, interdum tri- 

 dentata . . . Sem. Hermaphroditis solitaria, oblonga, nuda. Feminis simillima hermaphroditis . . .'. 

 Despite these precise differences Linnaeus apparently used some other character(s) in his Species 

 Plantarum (1753) to diagnose the species, since a number appear to be misplaced. Thus, it is rather 

 surprising that of the three species included in Anacyclus, two, A. creticus L. and A. orientalis, in 

 fact belong to Anthemis on the basis of the generic descriptions given in Genera Plantarum; 

 currently they are recognized as Anthemis rigida Sibth. & Sm. and Anthemis orientalis (L.) Degen 

 respectively (Fernandes, 1976). On the same grounds two of the species placed in Anthemis 

 would have been better placed in Anacyclus. Thus, on the basis of cypsela shape, Anthemis 

 pyrethrum L. and A. valentina L. have a similar fruit morphology to the only other member of 

 Anacyclus, A. valentinus L. Linnaeus understates the similarity between the two Valencian taxa 

 when, after the description of Anthemis valentina, there is a note 'Affinis admodum Anacyclo 

 Valentino', the latter taxon differing only by its fewer, shorter ligules (see p. 131). Even a casual 

 observation of the specimens available to Linnaeus shows that the only character which separated 

 Anacyclus and Anthemis was the presence or apparent absence of ligules. This is a good example, 

 in fact, of how the generic criteria defined in Genera Plantarum ed. 5 are not necessarily the same 

 as those used in Species Plantarum, even though the generic epithets are the same. 



(2) At the turn of the nineteenth century the major surveys of the Anthemidae which appeared 

 in the works of Willdenow (1803) and Persoon (1807) maintained the useful generic criteria 

 outlined by Linnaeus in his Genera Plantarum but still followed the designations as given in 

 Species Plantarum. 



Willdenow, in his Species Plantarum (1803 : 2171), stressed the diagnostic features at the 

 beginning of his account: 'Recept. paleaceum. Pappus emarginatus. Sem. lateribus membranaceus', 

 but had devised an illogical arrangement where four species with compressed lateral winged 

 cypselas were included in Anthemis. In addition to Anthemis pyrethrum and A. valentina two 

 newly described species, A. clavatus and A. tomentosa, were included, but these are now considered 

 to be conspecific. Anacyclus alexandrinus ( = Tanacetum monanthos L.), the Egyptian and Libyan 

 desert annual, was also described as new, and two eastern Mediterranean annuals, A. orientalis 

 and A. creticus, were maintained in his concept of Anacyclus. 



It was not until Brotero (Fl. Lusit. 1 : 239 (1804)), in a footnote to his analytical key to genera, 

 alluded to the fact that certain taxa were artifically separated into Anthemis and Anacyclus that the 



