THE GElSrUS MANETTIA 3 



ones; for one of his seven species he calls Guagnehina ?'ffnita,a,nd his 

 figure of this alone leaves no doubt of its identit}' with Martius's 

 M. cordifoUa of the previous year. Of the remaining six, fovir are 

 obviously typical small-flowered Manettias, while the other two are 

 members of the intermediate group (Schumann's Hetekochloka), the 

 first of this group to be described. Vellozo's recoi'd is thus important 

 historically, as showing his opinion that the members of all these 

 groups are congeneric — an opinion that is still open to doubt, although 

 it seems to have been accepted without doubt by these earlier 

 systematists. 



The identity of Guarjiiebina with Manettia, although suggested 

 by Maund in 183S {infra), was not published before twenty-five 

 years later by Bentham, in his research upon Regnell's plants from 

 Minas Greraes ; among these he found Guagnehina lideo-ruhra, which 

 he renamed Manettia luteo-ruhra {LinncBa, xxiii. (1850) 445). In 

 justice to Vellozo's figures, which are not invariably everything to be 

 desired, it should be said that this generic identity is obvious from 

 any of the seven species figured. 



In the meantime the very existence of Guagnehina was ignored 

 by the many professed general systematists of that time — DeCandolle, 

 in the fourth volume of his Prodronms (1830) ; Don, in his General 

 System, iii. 488 (1834) ; Endlicher, Genera Plantarum (1836). 

 Poeppig and Endlicher, in their Nov. Gren. & Sp. iii. 24 (1845), 

 accept all the previously-published synonymy, but overlook Guag- 

 nehina ; they add four new species, M. micans, M. hispida, 

 M. qlandulosa, and M. paniculata. This oversight of Guagnehina 

 may be due largely to the fact that M. cordifoJia — or rather its 

 glalarous variety, the M. glahra of Chamisso and Schlechtendahl, had 

 ah-eady become a familiar and favourite ornamental climber in hot- 

 houses. As such it was figured, in colour, no fewer than five tmies in 

 the preceding decade — i. e., in Bot. Mag. 3202 (1832) ; Bot. Beg. 

 18G6 (183G) ; Paxton, Mag. Bot. ii. (1836) 267 ; Sweet, Brit. Fl. 

 Gard. ser. ii. t. 233 (1836) ; and finally in the very beautiful picture in 

 Maund's The Botanist, ii. (1838) t. 87. This last-named authority is 

 of great importance, for in connection with the figure of M. cordifoUa 

 a new section of Manettia is proposed, to include that species, together 

 with " M. gracilis, M. puhescens, M. attenuata, a new Peruvian 

 species — probably M. micans Poepp. & Endl., a robust form of 

 M. cordifoUa (q. v.) — and Guagnehina ignita Vellozo." In other 

 words a large-flowered section of Manettia (Ptbehaxtitos) was pro- 

 posed, and the identity of Guagnehina with Manettia virtually 

 recognized, albeit casually. 



in 1829 Chamisso and Schlechtendnhl had published the descrip- 

 tions of seven new species of Manettia among Sello's Brazilian plants, 

 including four of the Pyrrhanthos-group, and one only, M. fnnhriata, 

 of the small-flowered group. The remaining two, M. ciliata and 

 M. Psendo-diodia, are identical in the light of later research ; but 

 their jjublication is of interest in the history of the genus, as the 

 former is merely a new name for a species of the group Heterochlora 

 K. Schum., described originally by Sprengel in 1825 (see M. peduncn- 

 lata, infra) under the name I>iodi(( pedunculalu. 



