ROBINSON. — SYNOPSIS OF THE GENUS NOCCA. 467 



II. — SYNOPSIS OF THE GENUS NOCCA. 



NOCCA, Cav. Icon. iii. 12, t. 224 (1795) ; Pers. Syn. ii. 498 (1807) ; 

 La Llave & Lex. Nov. Veg. i. 31 (1824) ; Spach, Hist. x. 40 (1841). 

 Noccaea, Willd. Spec. iii. 2393 (1804) ; Jacq. Frag. 58, t. 85 (1805); 

 Spreng. Anleit. ii. 548 (1818) ; Less. Linnaea, vi. G95 (1831), & Syu. 

 151 (1832) ; not Moench. Lagasca, Cav. Ann. Cien. Nat. vi. 331 

 (1803). Lagascea, Willd. Enum. Hort. Berol. 941 (1809;; Spreng. 

 1. c. 549 (1818) ; HBK. Nov. Gen. & Spec. iv. 24 (1820) ; DC. Prodr. 

 v. 91 (1836); Benth. & Hook. f. Gen. PI. ii. 342; Hoffmann in Engl. 

 & Prantl, Nat. Pflanzenf. iv. Ab. 5, 212. — Heads 1- to rarely 2-flowered, 

 aggregated in dense cainpanulate »r subglobose capitate glomerules ; 

 these subtended by ovate to linear more or less specialized herbaceous 

 bracts ; proper involucre calyx-like, tubular, gamophyllous, 5-toothed. 

 Flowers alike, perfect, fertile.- Corolla with narrow proper tube, en- 

 larged cylindric throat, and 5-toothed limb, yellow to white or reddish 

 purple, well exserted from the surrounding involucre. Style-branches 

 long, attenuate ; achenes columnar or attenuate toward the base ; pap- 

 pus of 2 to several short scales or rudimentary. — Annual herbs or more 

 often shrubs, probably all natives of tropical America, a single annual 

 species now widely distributed in the tropics. Leaves chiefly opposite. 

 The name Nocca (given by Cavanilles in 1795 in honor of Dominico 

 Nocca, professor of botany at Padua) is clearly the one to be employed 

 for this genus by those who wish to apply consistently the generally 

 conservative Berlin Rules. From the definite characterization and ex- 

 cellent figure given by Cavanilles there can be no doubt as to the iden- 

 tity of his genus Nocca, and the fact that the name was taken up in the 

 same sense within fifty years by Persoon, Jacquin, La Llave, and Sweet, 

 should establish its validity. The form Noccaea, adopted by various 

 botanists from Cassini to Kuntze, may be regarded as a different spelling 

 of the same name. Although substantive in form it has no advantage 

 over Nocca commensurate with the indefiniteness which succeeds any 

 modification of a name as originally published, and it is preferable there- 

 fore to take the name in its earliest form. While always reluctant to 

 change any current generic name like Lagascea, I hesitate the less in 

 this instance from the fact that this genus has attained no importance 

 in horticulture or pharmacy, and its nomenclature has accordingly little 

 or no significance outside technical systematic botany. 



