THE KAEEST TYPOGRAPHIC PRODUCT OF LINN.EUS. 361 



A comparison of both the leaves in question offers still further 

 interest. Thus the cancelled page 89 contains only one species of 

 Mlnuartia, while the added leaf contains three. It appears that 

 LinnsT^us wrote Mimiarlia hispaniai by some absent-mindedness on 

 the cancelled page 8i), but corrected it on the reprinted page 89 as 

 Minuartia lUchutoiiKi ; and that the latter specific name is correct 

 is corroborated by Lotling's cited passages, and also in the second 

 edition of the Species Fldiitiiruiii. 



We now come to the question, What impelled Linnaeus to 

 establish, and afterwards suppress, the generic name Giwre-Jd ? 

 I do not think I err in ascribing this to some mistake in, or wrong- 

 reading of, Lofling's manuscript. Lolling first informed Linnaeus 

 of Minuartia dichotoma in a letter dated Madrid, 1/12 June, 1752, 

 and described the plant . . . adding, " The genus is a difficult one, 

 nevertheless I have referred it to 3Iollit(/u, although I know that its 

 outward form is widely different." In another letter, Madrid, 

 17/28 August, 1752, Lolling continues his report thus : — 



"With regard to the MoUiujo ... I am now of a different 

 opinion. When I was at St. Fernando, on a visit to Dr. Barnades, 

 I obtained a new species (Giwrva) still smaller, quite distinct, but 

 having the same structure, so that both facies and fructification 

 dictate that it is a peculiar genus, and different from Mulhigo. 

 The only thing which perplexes me is that I did not see the latter at 

 St. Fernando in flower, and further, that it has only a single seed, 

 while the previously described one is polyspermous." 



Now Liun£eus mistook the word "Guerva," and for it wrote 

 Guerezia, of which Lofiing himself under Qaeria wrote further, " ob 

 capsulam monospermam debet distinctum Genus constituere." 



Lofling's botanical part in the Iberian peninsula yielded five new 

 genera. Four of these he had himself established, Minuartia, 

 Orte//ia, Queria, Velezia, but the fifth Linnfeus entitled Loejiimiia. 

 ... In a letter from Madrid, dated 2/13 November, 1752, Lofiing 

 begs that his four genera may be taken up. . . . Linufeus at once 

 acceded to the wish of his esteemed pupil, and in May of the 

 following year the Species Plantaruin published all five genera. 

 From this it is clear that the Species Plantanim was still under 

 correction whilst passing through the press. Linnreus, up to pp. 

 89-90, only had knowledge of one species of Minuartia, to which, by 

 some mistake or absence of mind, he gave the name hispanica instead 

 of dichotoma. During the printing he became aware that Gnerezia 

 should be regarded as Qaeria, and as he had since got information of 

 two other species of Minuartia, he hastened to insert these corrections 

 and additions to the still unfinished printing of the Species Flantarum, 

 and to substitute new pages 89-90 for those already printed. 



I have stated that the existence of these cancelled pages has 

 long been known, as shown by the notes by Mr. Carruthers (dated 

 25th Sept. 1871) in the copy of the above-mentioned work which 

 he gave to the herbarium library at Kew: — 



"Pp. 89, 90 were cancelled, but in this copy the original pages 

 are retained. In the leaf which replaced it the following changes 



Journal of Botany. — Vol, 31. [Aug. 1896.] 2 b 



