ACACIA TERMINALIS (Salish. ) Macbride 
(4. elata A. Cunningham) 
When Macbride took up Salisbury’s name for this 
plant in 1917 on the basis of priority, he wrote (in Contrib. 
Gray Herb. 59: 7): ‘‘It seems reasonably certain that 
Salisbury described the plant named much later by Cun- 
ningham.”’ In spite of the fact that this new combination 
was published over twenty years ago it seems to have 
been entirely overlooked by botanists. 
Acacia terminalis (Salish. ) Macbride in Contrib. 
rray Herb. 59 (1917) 7. 
Mimosa terminalis Salisbury Prodr. (1796) 825. 
Acacia elata A. Cunningham in Hooker London 
Journ. Bot. 1 (1842) 883. 
Acacia 'rortiuis (Morsk.) Hayne 
(A. spirocarpa Hochst. ex A. Richard) 
In our discussion of Acacia Raddiana G.Savi it was 
pointed out that when Hayne published Acacia tortilis, 
based on Mimosa tortilis Forskal, he applied the specific 
epithet erroneously in its new position to a different plant. 
Article 54 of the International Rules of Nomenclature 
provides that: ‘‘When, on transference to another genus, 
the specific epithet has been applied erroneously in its 
new position to a different plant, the new combination 
must be retained for the plant on which the epithet was 
originally based. ”’ 
Maire (in Mém. Soc. Hist. Nat. Afr. Nord 3 (1933) 
118) was the first to point out that under the Rules the 
combination Acacia tortilis must be used in place of 
Acacia spirocarpa Hochstetter ex A. Richard. He writes: 
“Or l'étude du spécimen original de Forskal a permis a Christ- 
ensen d’établir l’identité de la plante de cet auteur avec /’ Acacia spi- 
rocarpa Hochst. in Rich. Ce dernier doit done prendre, en conformité 
[ 104 | 
