300 NOTES ON THE INDEX KEWENSIS. 



although he brings other extracted names out of Ludwig's Def. gen. 

 pi., e.g. Rubeola, Cruciata). 



Cannabina Ludw. 1737, Mill. 1739 = Datisca L. 1747. (The 

 Kew-Index gives only Cannabina ex L. 1749.) 



Guiabara Mill. 1789 := Coccoloba L. 1759. (The Kew-Index 

 gives only Guiabara Boelim. 17G0 and omits also the oldest name : 

 Uvifera L. 1738.) 



"Orleania Boehm-Ludw. 17G0 = Bixa L. Oct. 1737. (The Kew- 

 Index omits the Orellana Ludw. May-June 1737.) 



Sesamodcs Ludw. 1737 = Astrocarpus Necker 1790. (The Kew- 

 Index gives only Sesamo(i)des Eehb. 1828.) 



Can Mr. Jackson be indebted for these disorderly additions 

 to the Kew staff, wherefrom no one is named and responsible ? 

 The Kew Index brings many "addenda" from Boehmer-Ludwig's 

 Def. gen. pi. 1700 but Achyrodes Boehm. 17G0 = Lamarckia Moench. 

 1794 has been overseen, although Achyrodes had been taken up by 

 other botanists; see f. i. this Journal 1894: 185. 



Many thousands of species-names exist only in synonyms and 

 are not named correctly or according to Hookerian genera-names, 

 and are missing at all under the valid genus-name. I shall give 

 only very few samples out of the "addenda " : 



Diplopyramis aethiopica Welw. (= Ceyatotjonon atriplicifi ilium) = 

 Oxygonum (1822) without species name. The same under Cerato- 

 yonon with 3 species, under I'oJyyonwa atriplicifoliuin Wall. 1828 

 and P. Oivenii Bojer 1835, also under O.vyyonum is missed the 

 doubtless correct and valid name, 0. atriplicifolium. Altogether in 

 seven places the one correct name is omitted, through Mr. Jackson's 

 unwillingness to form that correct name ! Perhaps he had not 

 permission to do it ? Why did Sir Joseph Hooker not correct the 

 thousand names of this kind ? Why had Mr. Jackson not in this 

 line the aid of the Kew Staff as announced in the preface ? Had 

 Mr. Jackson ever had any ordinate aid of the Kew Staff? Not so 

 far as I know." Why is the work called Index Kewensis if it does 

 not bring the names of Kew herbarium as they ought to be according 

 to the best Kew work: Bentham & Hooker's Genera Planttrum. 

 The title: Index Kewensis in the meaning of bringing a full and 

 exact list of phanerogamic names as they ought to be in Kew is 

 inaccurate. " Du soUst dem Ochseu, der da drischet, nicht das 

 Maul verbinden," says a proverb, but they did not use at Kew that 

 good principle ; I do not believe that they envied the task of 

 naming the thousands of species transferendae. The "harmless 



* Mr. Jackson was never an officer of the Kew herbarium, but the " Kew 

 list," "Kew Index" being elaborated by him misled other botanists to believe 

 him to be such ; e. g. thus Professor Buchenau (see Engler's Bot. Jahrb. xv : 256, 

 note) who sent therefore his monograph of Tropaeolum requested by me for Mr. 

 Jackson only to the Kew herbarium in March 1892 (as he wrote me) instead 

 directly to Mr. Jackson. And this monograph has also been used by Mr. 

 Jackson by correcting and omitting the wrong names, e.g. Tr. aiireum = Tr. 

 azureum; Tropaeolum denticulatum Kew list = Epilohium denticulatiim E. & P. 

 as shown by Prof. Buchenau. The reproach against me in this Jonrnal, 1894, 

 279, is therefore not substantiated ; I fulfilled my part of contract. 



