ox TITE aEXERTC XAME WTICSTR(EMTA 53 



'unavailable. Mr. Sprague's conclusion that the name Lci'placca 

 H. B. K., is to be retained for the genus in question under the 

 International Rules is, however, incorrect, and is somewhat incom- 

 l)rohensible in view of the detailed synonymy given in my paper. 



A reference to my paper will show that if Hcemocharis Salisb. 

 (lS0t5) be rejected under the International Rules, because unaccom- 

 panied by diagnosis, and if Wikstrwmia Schrad. (5 May, 1821) be 

 rejected because of WlcJcstroemia Endl. (1833), which, in the form 

 IVikstroemicCy has been made a nomen conservandum, the earliest 

 name available for the genus is Lindleya Nees (21 May, 1821), 

 based upon the same species as Wikstroemia Schrad. Although the 

 name Lindleya H.B.K. is now in common use for a genus of 

 Rosacea), this use of the name dates only from 1823 or perhaps 1824 

 (see Barnhart, Bull. Torr. Club, xxix. 597 ; 1902), and the proper 

 name of the genus in question is Lindleyella Rydb. (1908). The 

 name Lindleya was also used for two species belonging to Casearia, 

 as a plate name only, by Humboldt Bonpland and Kunth*, and 

 later in the same 3^ear appears as a nomen nudum in Kunth's 

 JSLalvacecd (p. 10 ; 1822) ; but these uses are invalid and, more- 

 over, subsequent to the use of the name Lindleya by Nees. The 

 latter therefore stands under the International Rules as the proper 

 name for the genus formerly known as Laplacea, 



Mr. Sprague gives the date of Wikstroemia Sprang, as 1826. 

 l^he name, however, was published in 1821, as correctly given in the 

 Judex Keioensis and in my paper. His statement that " Schrader 

 and Endlicher both used the spelling Wickstroemia, which was 

 corrected by subsequent authors " is also incorrect. Endlicher's 

 spelling was Wickstroemia, but Schrader's was Wikstroemia, as defi- 

 nitely stated in my paper (p. 38). 



Two corrections in my own paper may be mentioned. The 

 combination of the names Wikstroemia Schrad. and Lindleya Nees, 

 under the latter name, in connection wdth the publication of Wik- 

 strbmia (sic) Spreng., was made not by Sprengel, but by the editor of 

 the journal in which the name appeared, being signed '* Red." The 

 specific name of Schrader's Wikstroemia was originally spelt ^'fructi- 

 cosa,'^ by an obvious typographical error, and was first given correctly 

 (fruticosa) by Nees, Flora (iv. pt. 1, 328; 7 June, 1821), who, 

 however, spelled the generic name Wickstroemia. Although by an 

 oversight it was not so stated, the species which I transferred to 

 Wikstroemia in the paper above cited vv^ere the American forms onlv. 



S. F. Blake.^ 



It is desirable that no uncertainty should exist as to the interpre- 

 tation of the International Rules, It is therefore satisfactory that 

 Dr. Blake now agrees that his twenty-four new combinations under 



* Nov. Gen. & Sp. v. pi. 479, 480 (Feb. 1822). In one of the two copies 

 of the quarto edition which I have examined in this connection these two plates 

 appear twice, labelled respectively in each case Lindleya glabra and Casearia 

 javitensis, Lindleya mollis, and Casearia mollis. In the other copy the plate 

 (479) labelled Lindleya glabra is wanting. 



