250 THE JOURNAL OF BOTANr 



58 (1891) : Kuntze, Rev. Gen. pars 1, 225 (1891) ; Render in Bailey, 

 Cycl. Am. Hort. 1626 (1902) ; non Lindl. 



Sericotheea Rami. Sylva Tell. 152 (1838) ; Rydb. in N. Am. PI. 

 xxii. 261 (1908). 



Spircea seet. Holodiscm K Koch, Dendrol. i. 309 (1869). 



Solano a. Greene in Pittonia, ii. 67 (1890) ; et in Man. Bot. San 

 Francisco Bay, 242 (1894); Jepson, Fl. W. Mid. Calif, ed. 1, 384 

 (1901) ; ed. 2, 324 (1911) [Asclepiadacece-Asclepiadined]. 



Schizonotus A. Gray in Proc. Am. Acad. xii. 6(5 (1876), in adnot. ; 

 Syn. Fl. N. Am. ed. 2, ii. 86, 100 (1880) ; S. Wats. Bot. Calif, ii. 

 463 (1880) ; Rattan, Anal. Key W. Coast Bot. 78 (1888) ; K. Sebum, 

 in Engl, et Prantl, Nat. Pflanzenf. iv. 2, 237 (1895) ; Dalle Torre et 

 Harms, Gen. Siphonog. 413 (1904). 



Solanoana Kuntze, Rev. Gen. pars. 2, 421 (1891). 



The effective publication of Schizonotus Lindl. dates from Lind- 

 ley's Introduction to the Natural System of Botany (1830). The 

 genus was founded on Spircea sorbifolia Linn , and distinguished by 

 the fruit being capsular. The letterpress accompanying Bot. ileg. 

 t. 1365, published in Nov. 1830, contains the following paragraph : 

 " This [Spircea arieefolia] is one of a set of plants which, if they 

 be considered the type of the genus Spircea, are distinguished by their 

 oligospermous distinct carpella and exstipulate leaves ; they are never- 

 theless retained by the most recent botanists that have examined 

 them, in the same group as Spircea A) uncus, opulifolia, and sorbi- 

 folia, — in all which the habit, fruit, and foliage, are decidedly 

 different. We confess it appears to us, that there is little consistency 

 in this, while such genera as Sieversia and Geum, Potentilla and 

 Fragaria, are separated. Surely it would be more conformable to 

 the modern principles of constructing genera, principles that have 

 been well illustrated by M. De Candolle's recent work upon Tlmbel- 

 liferce, to consider the old Spircea made up of several distinct genera ; 

 among which Seringe's section Sorbaria [based on S. sorbifolia'], or 

 our Schizonotus, which is to Mosacece nearly what Niaella is to 

 Ranunculacece, should be among the first to be recognised." 



Lindley thus explicitly retained S. arieefolia (S. discolor) in 

 Spircea and separated S. sorbifolia as the type of a new genus, 

 Schizonotus, on account of its syncarpous gymeceum. Yet Rafinescpie 

 stated six years later that he adopted the genus and name Schizonotus 

 for S. discolor " on the suggestion of Lindley, who proposed to unite 

 to it the next \_S. sorbifolia^, but the habit is too different." Having 

 transferred the name Schizonotus to a different genus, Rafinesque 

 proposed the name Basilima for Schizonotus Lindl. One can hardly 

 wonder that Rafinesque's work was ignored by his contemporaries, if 

 this is a representative sample. 



As both Schizonotus Lindl. and Schizonotus Rafin. were tacitly 

 included under Spircea Linn, in Bentham and Hooker's Genera 

 Plantarum, the fact that they were different genera seems to have 

 escaped notice, and Rafinesque's Schizonotus was merged in Lindley's 

 in the Index Keivensis. Kuntze pointed out in 1891 that Lindley's 

 Schizonotus was synonymous with Basilima, and Rafinesque's with 

 Holodiscus, but overlooked the fact that Lindley's genus was effec- 



