NOMENCLATORIAL NOTES. V. 
BY 
CHARLES SCHWEINFURTH 
Elleanthus Jimenezii (Sch/tr.) C. Schweinfurth 
comb. nov. 
Kpilyna Jimenezu Schlechter in Beihefte Bot. Cen- 
tralbl. 86, Abt. 2 (1918) 875. 
There appears to be no doubt that the monotypic spe- 
cies furnishing the concept H/pilyna Schltr. is referable 
to the genus H/leanthus. Its flowers, with the exception 
of an abbreviated column, are entirely typical of Hllean- 
thus. The small size of all parts and the general aspect 
are mostly matched by Hlleanthus muscicola Schlitr., ex- 
cept that in H/pilyna the floral bracts also are abbreviated. 
The divergence of Hpilyna from Hlleanthus is wholly 
vegetative, the only striking difference from Hlleanthus 
and from all the other members of the Sobralieae is that 
the leaves of Mpilyna are not articulated to the leat- 
sheaths. This difference, however, is scarcely deserving 
of generic recognition, particularly in view of the fact 
that exarticulate leaves occur in the genus /’pidendrum 
in which the leaves are almost uniformly articulated to 
the leaf-sheaths. 
To be sure, the general aspect of this concept is sug- 
gestive of certain members of the genus Kpidendrum of 
the H. Endres Reichb.f. alliance, but the flowers show 
that Kriinzlin’s contention (in Vierteljahrsschrift Natur- 
forsch. Gesell. Ziirich 74 (1929) 188) that it belongs to 
that genus cannot be entertained. 
As the original diagnosis of H/pilyna states, the name 
is compounded from its supposed allies—Hpidendrum 
and Hvelyna, a younger name for Hlleanthus. 
[ 38 ] 
