ROBINSON. — DIAGNOSES ETC. OF SPERMATOPHYTES. 515 



Trichocline reptans (Wedd.), comb. nov. Bichcnia reptans 

 Wedd. Chlor. And. 25, t. 8B (1855). 



Gerbera gossypina (Royle), comb. nov. ChaptaUa gossypina 

 Royle, 111. IS, 247, 251 (mere mentions, without characterization) & 

 t. 57, f. 2, with floral details ("analyses") rendering the plate valid 

 publication according to Article 37 of the International Rules. Ono- 

 seris lanuginosa Wall. Cat. no. 2929 (1828), nomen nudum. Oreoseris 

 lanuginosa (Wall.) DC. Prod. vii. 17 ("1838"), citing Royle both by 

 page and plate number; Deless. Ic. iv. 34 (citing both Royle and DC), 

 t. 76 (" 1839"). It is impossible to see how the name lanuginosa can 

 stand under the International Rules. Wallich's original publication 

 of the name in 1828 is accompanied by no description. The pul>lica- 

 tions of DeCandolle and Delessert must have been prepared at the 

 same time and in collaboration, since they each cite the other by 

 reference to page or plate, but it is significant that they both cite 

 Royle's publication, a seemingly conclusive evidence that it must 

 have been already in print. A manuscript note in the copy of the 

 fourth volume of Delessert's Icones in the library of the Gray Her- 

 barium states that it was received in December, 1840. 



Gerbera maxima (D. Don), comb. nov. ChaptaUa maxima D. Don, 

 Prod. Fl. Nepal. 166 (1825). Perdicium semifloscidaref Ham. ex D. 

 Don, 1. c, not L. Tussilago macrophylla Wall. Cat. no. 2989 (1828). 

 Berniera nepalensis DC. Prod. vii. 18 ("1838"). Gerbera macrophylla 

 (Wall.) Benth. in Benth. & Hook. f. Gen. PI. ii. 497 (1873), according 

 to Hook. f. Fl. Brit. Ind. iii. 391 (1882). Gerbera nepalensis (DC.) 

 Sch. Bip. Flora, xxvii. 780 (1844). 



Leucheria integrifolia (Phil.) Reiche, Fl. Chil. iv. 420 (1905), as 

 Leuceria. This binomial was published by its author in a foot-note 

 with the statement that he did not regard it as valid. Why authors 

 should wish to publish names which they do not l)elieve to be valid is 

 a psychological mystery, which need not be discussed here. The 

 point of interest in the present case lies in the fact that the discredited 

 binomial would appear after all to be the legitimate designation of 

 the plant in question. Reiche founded his new combination upon 

 Chabraea integrifolia Phil. Anal. Univ. Santiago, xli. 744 (1872), but 

 he states that Leuceria integrifolia (Phil.) [Reiche] cannot be accepted 

 because of the existence of an earlier Leuceria integrifolia Phil. How- 

 ever, this earlier homonym does not appear to have been published 

 and it seems probable that Reiche had in mind Chabraea integrifolia 

 Phil. Linnaea, xxviii. 716 (1856), which on a later page of his work 

 (430) Reiche includes in the synonymy of Leuceria lithosprrmifolia 



