346 



THE JOURNAL OF BOTANY 



species were separated as a third section, Diformia. It is evident, 

 from the position of Haworth's remark, that Qlottiphyllum was 

 equivalent to Linguceformia as defined in his Synopsis. This suggests 

 that the remark may have been written before Ins MS. was dually 

 revised for publication. 



Gibbjsum Haw. Kev. 101 (1821), in obs.—Mesembryamthemum 



sect. Gibhosa Haw. /. c. 



Appended to the description of the section Gibbosa is the obser- 

 vation : "Genus bonum, et G-ibbceum nomen propono." The publi- 

 cation of the name is valid according to the Rules. 



Coxophyton Haw. Rev. 82 (1821), in obs.—Mesembryanthemum 

 sect. Minima Haw. /. c. 



_ The description of sect. Minima was followed by the remark " If 

 this section proves to be a genus, the name Conophytun would he 

 apt." This is no more than a suggestion that in certain hypothetical 

 circumstances Gonophyton would be a suitable name, and does .not 

 constitute valid publication under the International Rules. Ha worth 

 did not assume the responsibility of raising the section Minima to 

 generic rank : he merely suggested the possibility that it might be 

 so raised in the future. 



Cephalophyllitm Haw. Eev. 108 (1821), in obs—Mesembry- 

 anthemum group Gephalophylla Haw. /. c. 



The group Gephalophylla included two sections, Gomiculala and 

 Gapitata. Appended to the description is the remark : " Genus si 

 bonum, nomen Gephalophyllum propono. Forte duo genera." 

 Haworth had not decided whether Gephalophyllum should be sepa- 

 rated from Mesembry anthemum nor, if it were separated, whether it 

 should be treated as a single genus or two genera. In the circum- 

 stances the publication of the generic name Gephalophyllum cannot 

 be considered as valid. As Haworth did not accept the responsi- 

 bility of separating Gephalophyllum generically, his proposal that it 

 should bear that name if it were eventually separated is no more than 

 a suggestion which, as far as the International Rules are concerned, 

 might be adopted or rejected by the first author who actually raised 

 the group to generic rank. The name Gephalophyllum referred to 

 the capitately crowded leaves and would have been restricted by 

 Haworth to the section Gapitata hid he created two new genera. 



The pre-Linnean name Nycterianthemum was mentioned by 

 Haworth as synonymous with sect. Noctijlora in a remark at the end 

 of his description of that section : " Genus proprium ? Antiquorum 

 Botanicorum j\ T i/cterirnfhemum." This amounts to publication in 

 synonymy, which is invalid. He did not even suggest that the 

 name should be adopted. 



He also mentioned the sections Bracteata (1. c. 113; and Caly- 

 culata (I.e. 165) as representing separate genera, and the Pomcri- 

 diana (I.e. 162) and Juncea (I.e. 175) as possibly distinct genera, 

 but suggested no names in these cases. 



It has seemed worth while to discuss the validity of the 

 above names, as the interpretation of the International Rules is 

 involved. Though it is not explicitly stated in the Rules that an 



