gation. In either event they are distinct enough to war- 
rant their continued maintenance as separate species, with 
intermediate variants. 
Acacia tortilis was published by Hayne in 1827, based 
on Mimosa tortilis Forskal, which appeared in the Flora 
Aegyptiaco-Arabica (1775) together with a very short 
description. Hayne’s name has continued in general use, 
even though the true identity of Forskal’s plant,on which 
it was based, has long been in doubt. 
In 1867, Schweinfurth (in Linnaea 35: 328) wrote 
as follows in regard to the identity of this plant: 
“Ob die von Hayne. . .zuerst beschriebene und abgebildete 4. 
tortilis mit dem Mimosa tortilis Forskal’s. . .identisch sei, lisst sich ohne 
Original-Exemplare nicht entscheiden, da, nach der Beschreibung zu 
urtheilen, unter diesen Namen ebenso gut die Var. a der Acacia spi- 
rocarpa gemeint sein kénnte.’’ 
Bentham, in 1875 (in Trans. Linnean Soc. London 
30: 505), stated that Mimosa tortilis Forskal ‘‘must be 
either 4.spirocarpa or A.tortilis; the character given is 
insufficient for determination.’’ He included Forskal’s 
name in the synonymy of 4.spirocarpa. 
Schweinfurth again commented on this problem in 
1896 (in Bull. Herb. Boiss. 4, App. 2: 207) stating: 
** Mimosa tortilis F, . .ist wahrscheinlich mit 4.spirocarpa H. iden- 
tisch; die allzukurze Diagnose gestattet es indessen nicht, die Mog- 
lichkeit auszuschliessen, dass darunter A.tortilis Hayne zu verstehen 
sei.’ 
He also cited ‘‘? Mimosa tortilis Fk.’’ inthe synonymy 
of A.spirocarpa. 
Burtt-Davy (in Kew Bull. 1980: 404) gives Mimosa 
tortilis Forsk. ? in the synonymy of A.tortilis, but quotes 
Bentham’s statement that Mimosa tortilis Forskal ‘‘must 
be either A.spirocarpa or A.tortilis.”’ 
[ 101 | 
