1921J REIIDER, AZALEA OR LOISELEURIA 157 



5-c(lled prevailed long after Gaertner and even G. Don in 1834 described 

 the capsule as 5-celled. 



If the result arrived at by the method of types is not considered binding 

 by those who follow the International Rules, as the Rules do not clearly 

 formulate or recognize this method, the fact that Salisbury retained 

 Azalea for A. procumbens would leave no choice for those who conceive 

 the genus Rhododendron in the wider sense of Salisbury and Don, as it 

 certainly could not be considered correct if Salisbury had dropped Azalea 

 entirely and coined a new generic name for A. procumhens. On the other 

 hand Desvaux's action must be considered correct by those followers of 

 the International Rules who keep Azalea distinct from Rhododendron, 

 as in dividing the genus he left the larger number of species with Azalea 

 and gave a new name to the smaller group, which agrees with article 45 

 of the Rules. In this case the generic name for A. procumhens would 

 vary with the limitation of the genus Rhododendron, which shows that 

 the method of types is more conducive to stability in nomenclature than 

 the purely artificial division according to numbers.' 



The following citation of literature and synonyms for Azalea L. sensu 

 Salisbury and Azalea L. sensu Desvaux show that the former application 

 of the name was accepted by most of the earlier authors; it was probably 

 chiefly the influence of De Candolle which induced the acceptance of 

 Desvaux's name. 



Azalea L. sensu Salisbury 



Azalea Linnaeus, Gen. 35 (1737); Spec. 150 (1753), quoad spec, typicam 

 No. 6; Gen. 75 (1754), — Gaertner, Fruct. L. 301, t. 63, fig. 1 (1788), 

 quoad spec, depictam. — Salisbury, Prodr. 286 (179G). — D. Don in Edinh, 

 PhiL Jour, VI. 48 (1822). — Torrey, FL N. Y. 232 (1824). — Rcichen- 

 bach apud Moessler, Handb. Gewdchsk. i. 308 (1827); FL Germ. Exc. i. 

 417 (1830). —Sweet, Hort. Bril, ed. 2, 344 (1830). — G. Don, Gen, Syst, 

 III. 850 (1834). —Koch, Syn, FL Germ. 477 (1837). — Endlicher, Gen. 

 758 (1839). — Wood, Classb. BoL 374 (1845). — Lindley, Veg, Kingdom, 

 455 (1846), 



Loiseleuria Desvaux in Jour, BoL AppL i. 35 (1813). — Roemer & 

 Schultes, SysL iv. 353 (1819). — De Candolle, Prodr. vii. 714 (1839). — 

 Spach, Hist. Veg. ix. 444 (1840). — Bentham & Hooker, Gen. ii. 595 

 (1876).— Gray, Syn. FL N. Am. Ii. pt. i, 44 (1878).— Drude in Engler & 

 Prantl, Nat. PJlanzenfam. iv. 1, 39 (1889). — Robinson & Fernald, Gray^s 

 New Man. 632 (1908). — Small in N. Am. FL xxix. 40 (1914). 



Chamaecistus S. F. Gray, Nat. Arr. PL ii. 401 (l82l). ^ — Kuntze, Rev. 



Gen. II. 388 (l89l). — Britton & Brown, ///. FL ii. 563 (1897); ed. 2, ii. 

 683 (1913); Man. 700 (1901). 



^ See also my remarks on p. 45 of vol. I. 



^ Chamaecidus Oeder, Icon. FL Dan. i. 4 and 9 (1701) can hardly be considered a properly 

 published generic name, as the nomenclature of the earlier part of the work is prelinnean; 

 there is no generic description and only the different names for early phmts are cited in 

 chronological order — in this case Chamaecistus of Clusius happens to be the first name. 

 The insertion therefore of Loiseleuria in the list of Nomina conservanda was unnecessary, 

 but this cannot change the fact that it is now a nomen conservandum. 



