. 
32 CONSPECTUS TABULARUM. 
From TZelichrysum and Gnaphalium the genus Lasiopogon is known 
by its well-feathered pappus ; from Pterothriz, if restricted to P. spines- 
cens, by habit, and the heterogamous flower-heads. But it is less 
easily distinguishable from the heterogamous species of /Zelipterum, 
except indeed by its dwarf habit and annual roots. Still, as none of 
the Cape Heliptera are heterogamous or annual, and as all have conspi- 
cuous, and most of them lustrous, radiating involucra, there is practi- 
cally no difficulty, so far as the Cape Flora is concerned. Other hitherto 
universally recognised genera of Gnaphaloid Composite have equally un- 
certain limits. Thus the character which divides Gnaphalium from 
Helichrysum is in many cases indefinite ; nor is there any peculiarity of 
habit between these genera, if we take all the species of each into con- 
sideration. The showy elichrysa, which closely resemble Heliptera in 
aspect, do indeed look different from ordinary Gnaphalia; but the 
small-headed, and especially the annual species of Helichrysum, cannot 
be separated by the eye from Gnaphalia of similar habit. Nor were we 
to limit Helichrysum to its homogamous species should we have a more 
natural group; for species which are otherwise closely similar, differ 
chiefly one from the other by the presence or absence of female margi- 
nal flowers. The same difficulty occurs between Helichrysum and He- 
lipterum ; for, except by the non-plumose pappus, Helichrysum vestitum 
is with difficulty known from some states of Helipterum speciosissimum ; 
and many other Helichrysa (as H. sesamoides and H. squamosum) have 
completely the aspect of Heliptera. Were we therefore to reunite Z/e- 
lichrysum to Gnaphalium, we could hardly retain so purely artificial a 
group as LZelipterum. But then, doing so, for consistency’ sake, we 
must go very much further, and bring under one generic group most of 
the Gnaphaloidez with discoid flower-heads. For even Metalasia, ad- 
mirably distinguished as it is from Helichrysum by foliage and general 
aspect, and naturally limited as it seems to be, differs structurally from 
the homogamous species of [Helichrysum by a character so obscure that 
no one thinks of looking for it; I mean, the supposed stipes and beak 
of the young ovary, which both disappear in the advancing young fruit! 
Do none of the species of Helichrysum present similar appearances in 
their immature condition? In Metalasia, assuredly, these characters 
are often invisible; nor is the pappus always clavate in that genus; 
whereas, clavate pappus occurs in several Helichrysa. On the whole, 
we must choose between two evils; either to retain a number of faulty 
genera, recognisable in one country, but not in others; or, by abolishing 
these genera and rehabilitating the Linnean genus Gnaphalium, be pre- 
pared to deal with a genus of 600 to 700 species, a large number of 
which must receive new specific names. The former course is the only 
one open to me at present, in dealing with a local Flora; the latter 
can only be adopted after the whole group of Gnaphaloidew shall have 
been carefully re-examined, and the genera shown to be untenable, 
whether by floral character or by habit. 
Fig. 1, a plant of var. a; 2, one of var. 3; the natural size. Fig. 3, a flower, with 
nearly ripe achenium; 4, corolla of one of the female flowers; 5, stamen; 6, one of the 
pappus-plumes ; magnified. 
4 
“* 
