TWO NEW SOUTH AFRICAN SCROPHULARIACE^ 103 



lata bilabiata, labio superiore 4-lobo lobis rotundatis 3-4 mm. latis, 

 labio inferiore concavo integro rotundato subtiliter nervoso 9 mm. 

 lato, calcaribus 2 conicis obtusis divergentibus 9 mm. longis, fila- 

 mentis complanatis non villosis l'25-2 mm. longis, capsula juveni 

 ovoidea miuute glandulosa calycem leviter excedente. 



Habitat coioniEe Oramje River in regione Kalahari ; legit anno 

 1900 Lieut. Pateshall Thomas I 



This new species belongs to the genus, the type of which is 

 Hemimeris honcE-spei L. PI. Afr. Rar. p. 8, n. 1 (Dec. 1760) ; the 

 latter is the only species which Linnaeus referred to the genus. 

 Since Richter in his Codex botanicus linnceaniis (1840) does not 

 notice it, and since Hemimeris, as used by Bentham and other 

 authors, is a different, though allied, genus, an explanation becomes 

 necessary. Linnaeus in 1763 republished the dissertation PlantcB 

 africana'. rariores in the sixth volume of his Amcenitates Academica, 

 pp. 77-112, and added an appendix; to some extent this is a 

 revision of the original tract, and HemIxMERis bonce spei is changed 

 into PiEDEROTA boiicB spei, but the description and synonyms are 

 repeated, with the addition, however, of " fol. pinnatifidis " after 

 the name, and of Diandria over the name ; these additions make 

 no difference in effect, because in the body of the description the 

 leaves were described as " pinnatifida," and the position of the 

 plant at the head of the enumeration, followed next by a Gladiolus, 

 suggests the class Diandria. Sir J. E. Smith was aware of what 

 Linnaeus had done, for, in an article signed " S." in Rees, Cyclop, 

 xvii. p. 4 H (1811), he wrote, under H. diffusa, "We can hardly 

 doubt that the original Hemimeris (afterwards called Pmlerota) boue 

 spei is this species, though it was at first described as diandrous." 

 Hemimeris diffusa L. f. has subsequently been split into segregates, 

 all of which are referred to Diascia Link & Otto ; and Bentham in 

 DC. Prodr. x. p. 257 (1846), under D. diffusa, had the following 

 note : " Thunbergius sub nomine H. diftusae verisimiliter species 

 plures affines confudit. Linnaeus speciem quamdam huic affinem 

 nomine Paederot^ Bon^e-Spei signavit." 



There is no reason to doubt that Hemimeris bonce-spei L. is of 

 the same genus as Diascia Link & Otto, and this determination is 

 confirmed by the Linnean Herbarium, wherein two specimens in 

 Hemimeris on a sheet named " b. spei " can be easily recognized as 

 belonging to Diascia L. & 0. The younger Linnaeus, Willdenow, 

 and Thunberg used Hemimeris to include all the plants above re- 

 ferred to; and in 1828 Link and Otto, Ic. PI. Sel. p. 7, t. 2, 

 published the genus Diascia, which has since been accepted, and 

 the other species of the younger Linnaeus have been kept in a genus 

 to which the name of Hemimeris L. f. is retained, notwithstanding 

 the fact that Hemimeris L. is considered to be different. The rule 

 of priority does not sanction the dropping out of use of the original 

 Hemimeris, and on that account I use the name in the correct sense. 

 It is very unfortunate that Richter did not quote the first edition 

 of Linnaeus's Dissertations ; he uniformly quoted, instead of the 

 Dissertations, the reprints or revisions as they appeared in the 

 Amcenitates Academic(B ; possibly he had not access to the originals. 



