262 MUNDIA KUNTH V. MUNDTIA IIARV. 



Chthonoblastus Lyngyei Kiitz. = Microcoleus maritimus Bory. 

 Cuba, R. de la Sagra. 

 Geocjr. Distr. N. Atlantic. 

 OsciLLARiA MiNiATA Cm. Guadeloupe, Maze. 

 0. Fusco-RUBRA Cm. Guadeloupe, Maze ! 

 0. coRALLicoLA Cm. Guadaloupe, Maze\ 

 0. HYDRURiMORPHA Cm. Guadeloupe, Maze ! 

 0. c^RULEscENS Cm. Guadeloupe, Maze ! 

 0. sYMPLOCARioiDEs Cm. Guadeloupe, Maze ! 

 0. GLUTiNOSA A. Br. Guadeloupe, Maze. 

 0. STRAGULUM Rabeuh. Guadeloupe, Ma^^e ! 

 Sph^rozyga microcoleiformis Crn. Guadeloupe, Maze ! 

 Oncobyrsa Guadelupensis Cm. Guadeloupe, Maze ! 

 (To be continued.) 



MUNDIA KuNTH V. MUNDTIA Harv. 

 By James Britten, F.L.S. 



Pfeiffer (• Nomenclator,' ii. 370) notes on the name Mundia : 

 " Dicat. Henr. Mundio, Oxoniensi." In looking up names for our 

 • Botanical Biography,' we have failed to find any corroboration of 

 this derivation, nor do we know the claims of Henry Mundy, who 

 published a treatise, ' De aere vitali,' &c., at Oxford in 1680, to 

 commemoration. But it has become apparent that the name is, in 

 modern books, misspelt ; and it may be well to point this out, so 

 that the error may henceforth be avoided. 



The genus Mundia was founded by Kunth (Nov. Gen. v. 392 

 (1821) ) on Polygala spinosa L. It was so written by DeCandolle and 

 subsequent authors until 1838, when Harvey deliberately altered 

 the spelling, giving the following justification of his course of 

 action : — " Kunth has omitted to explain the generic name, which 

 he, as well as DeCandolle and others, \^T:ite ' Mundia.' I have 

 ventured to make a slight change in the spelling, as I presume it is 

 intended to commemorate the services rendered to Botany by 

 M. Mundt, a most meritorious collector of South- African plants ; 

 and wherever a plant is called after an individual, it is desirable to 

 retain the spelling as nearly as possible." — (Harvey, Gen. S. Afr. 

 Plants, 26). 



It is generally admitted, and there is no need therefore to enter 

 at length into the subject, that the view held by Harvey is un- 

 tenable ; and no one would now urge its adoption. We are all agreed 

 about Cincliona; though it will be long before Malcomia and Mathiola, 

 for example, replace the forms in which these names are usually 

 presented in botanical works. Other instances of error might 

 easily be cited, — Macnahia, for instance, by which Mr. Bentham 

 deliberately superseded the earlier Nabea of Lehmanu (1831), for 

 a reason analogous to that by w^hich Harvey justifies his alteration 



