according to the present provisions of the International 
Code of Botanical Nomenclature (Art. 7, Note 8, 1956), 
C. Wright no. 6.26 should be considered a neotype rather 
than a lectotype as suggested also by Fosberg in a per- 
sonal communication to me, 
Fortunately, | have seen a specimen from the Chicago 
Natural History Museum which was collected by Sessé 
and Mocino and labeled by them as **Datura Metel N.” 
kxcepting for the fruit, this specimen is identical with 
the illustration of Datura meteloides DC. (see Plates). 
Because of this outstanding similarity and since there is 
no other specimen which could fit the needs, | believe 
that this must represent the type collection. Inasmuch 
as the Chicago specimen consists of flowering material 
only, it seems probable that the fruits in the illustration 
represent an incorrect addition by an unknown. artist. 
However, I have not yet seen the specimen in the Ma- 
drid Herbarium (MA). The Sessé and Mocino specimen 
mentioned above is a duplicate of the original collection. 
Therefore, the material in the Madrid Herbarium should 
serve as type specimen, and the Chicago material, Sess, 
Mocino, Castillo et Maldonado, No. 157.2 ! (KF no. 847215) 
as an isotype. Datura meteloides, as typified above, is 
identical with the earlier D. ¢noaia of which it is there- 
fore, a synonym. It is, furthermore, distinct from JD. 
Wrightu. 
Il. Tae TPypreicatrion or Datura inovia Miller 
Datura inovia was described by Philip Miller (1768) 
from plants grown from seed which he had received from 
“La Vera Cruz.”” No type specimen was designated at 
that time, but there are specimens in the British Museum 
which were cultivated at the Chelsea Physic Garden dur- 
ing Miller's curatorship (1722-1770). In the absence of 
a type specimen, one of these may serve. 
— 
254 ] 
L 
