2 THE GENUS MAXETTIA 



So far, then, the synonymy is clear ; and Willdenow, in the fourth 

 edition of Linn. Sp. PL i. 024, dated 1797, records all the then- 

 known species thus : — 



Mnnettia reclinata Mutis. 



M. Lygistum Swartz (^Lygistwm P. Browne ; JPetesia Lygistum 



Linn.). 

 M. coccinea Willd. {Nacibea coccinea Aublet). 

 3f. picta Willd. {Nacihea alba Aublet. Manettia alba mihi, 



infra). 



Gmelin, in his 8y sterna (1791) had recognized the same four 

 species, but he separated Aublet's Nacibea from Manettia. Will- 

 denow adds a fifth species — M. lanceolata ; this is the Opliiorrliiza 

 lanceolata of Forskahl (Descr. Aeg.-arab. 42), subsequently known 

 as Musscenda luteola Delile. In 1916 I relegated this, with three 

 other si^ecies, to a new genus I'seudomusscenda (see Journ. Bot. liv. 

 297). 



In 1798 Ruiz and Pavon (Flor. Peru & Chili, i. 58) recognized 

 the synonymy of Manettia and Nacibea, and described three new 

 species, with figures : M. umbellata (t. 90. f. o) ; M. racemosa (t. 89. 

 f. «) ; and M. acuti'f'olia (t. 89. f. J). The two last-named appear 

 in Persoon's Synopsis (1805) as M. mutahilis and M. acutijlora 

 respectively. 



No further additions were made to the genus until the appearance 

 in 1820 of the third volume of the famous Nova Genera et Species of 

 Humboldt, Bonpland, arrd Kunth. These authors brought the total 

 number of species to nine, by the addition of M. uniflora and 

 31. havanensis (iii. 387) ; both these, however, have since been found 

 to be identical with the variable and widely-dispersed M. coccinea 

 (q. y.). 



It is remarkable that up to this point (1820) all the species 

 recorded belong to the small-flowered groups (see infra) ; nor was 

 any description of a large-flow-ered Mn/tettia (Scluunann's Pykkhan- 

 THOs) forthcoming until 1824. In that year Martins described and 

 figured (Spec. Mat. Med. Brasil, i. 89, t. 7 : Denkschr. K. B. Acad. 

 Miinchen, ix. 95), the first-known large-flowered species, destined 

 subsequently to be more widely cultivated, and covered more thickly 

 ■with the confusion of doubtful sj'nonymy, than any of the other 

 species of Manettia, before or since. This is M. cordifolia ; and 

 although Martius proffers no comparison with species previously 

 described, he seems to be in no doubt of the genus, which he identifies 

 with Nacihea, quoting an abstract of the generic characters from 

 A. L. de Jussieu's paper in Mem. Mus. Hist. Nat. Paris, vi. (1820) 

 384. A year (1825) later, however, Vellozo failed to recognize the 

 genus, of which he describes and figures no fewer than seven species 

 under a new genus Gnagnehina, in his Flora Fluoninensis (p. 45, 

 tt. 115-121). He tells us that in vain he invoked the help of Aublet 

 (the creator of Nacihea) in his enquiry for a genus previously described 

 to which he might assign these species. Nevertheless it is remarkable 

 that Vellozo, no less than Martius, regarded a large-flowered species, 

 without hesitation apparently, as congeneric with typical small- flowered 



