90 THE JOUHXAL OF BOTANY 



he adopted, in Horfc. Kew. ed. 2 (v. 25G), where the plant is stated 

 to have been introduced to the Gasden by Banks in 1789. In the 

 MS. Daybook of the Banksian Herbarium is an entry in Dryander's 

 hand showing that the phint was sent from Kew to be named on 

 Sept. 25, 1789 and was added to the Herbarium, where it now is ; at 

 the same time Dryander, on the sheet, substituted the name iincinata 

 for the micropliijlla of Solander. From this somewhat length}^ 

 account, which may not be altogether without interest as showing the 

 historical value of the National Herbarium, it will be seen that 

 although the name microplujlla is, from the point of view of publica- 

 tion, correctly cited as " Dryand. ex Smith," its actual author was 

 Solander. The reduction of micropliylla to Willdenow's uncinaia 

 w^as also made by Smith in Rees's Ci/dopcBdia (1815), anticipating 

 that of Steudel (^1821) cited in Index Kewensis. 



How far >S'. uncinata and ^. micropliylla are distinct is a matter 

 for closer investigation, especially of living plants, than I am able to 

 undertake. So far as a fairly large series of herbarium specimens 

 goes, I can see no sufficient differences between them ; Dr. Britton 

 diagnoses them as "leaflets elliptic, strongly veined" (>S^. uncinata^ 

 and "leaflets linear-oblong, scarcely veined" (/S'. micropliylla), but I 

 find in the National Herbarium a specimen labelled by him " &. unci- 

 nata Willd. so far as the leaflets go " which in general appearance 

 corresponds with 8. micropliylla and was distributed by Rugel 

 (no. 210) as '' Scliranckia angustata Torr. et Gray [ — micropliylla^ 

 sed foliis eximie venosa." The two are certainly, as Mr. Macbride 

 says, " closely related " ; it will have been noted that Dryander was 

 convinced of their identity and that Smith also united them. 



Walter's specimen of his Mimosa Intsia appears to belong to 

 S. micropliylla, with which Dryander (in Sol. MSS.) had already 

 identified his description. The confusion with Mimosa Intsia L. 

 dates back to Gronovius (Fl. Virg. 165 : 1743), who unites the 

 Virginia plant (Clayton, 416) with the description of the Linnean 

 species in Hort. Cliif . ; the same Lmnean description is quoted by 

 Gronovius in Fl. Virg. ed. 2, 81 (1762), against which (clearly re- 

 ferring to the Clayton specimen cited, which we have from Gronovius's 

 herbanum) Dryander has written " micropliylla " ; his note in Sol. 

 MSS. shows that he had observed Gronovius's mistake. Mr. Macbride 

 rio-htly demurs to Mr. Trelease's invention of Sclirankia Intsia, 

 ba^sed'^as it is on the acceptance, without the slightest investigation, 

 of Walter's misnomer : it is another example of the mischievous 

 tendency to create new combinations on insufficient knowledge against 

 which a protest was entered on p. 62 of this volume. 



The foregoing remarks may be thus tabulated : * 

 ScHRANKiA MiCKOPiiTLLA Macbride in Contrib. Gray Herb. lix. 9 

 (1919). 



Mimosa micropliylla Soland. MSS. xxi. 265 et m Herb. Banks ! ; 

 '' Dryand." ex Sm. Georgia Insects, ii. 123 (1797). 



Mimosa uncinata Diyand. in Soland. MSS. I. c, et in Herb. 

 Banks ! 



Mimosa Intsia Walt. Fl. Carol. 252 (1788) et Herb. ! non L. 



Sclirankia angustata Torr. & Gray, Fl. Bor. Amor. i. 400 (1840). 



