NOTES ON PENTAS. 127 



NeurocarpcBa lanceolata (from Salt) is on the same sheet. There can 

 therefore be no question as to what Brown meant ; and Mr. Hiern 

 tells me he intends to restore Neurocarpaa in his Catalogue of the 

 Welwitsch plants. I do not, however, propose, after the manner of 

 some German and American botanists, to publish under the restored 

 name a list of the species which should be transferred to it ; but 

 I think it may be worth while to print the notes I have made while 

 endeavouring to arrange the British Museum specimens in accordance 

 with Mr. Elliot's revision. 



The " table of species" which precedes the detailed enumeration 

 contains no diagnostic characters as a guide to arrangement, and is 

 apparently based on geographical distribution. Whatever value 

 might attach to this method is effectually neutralized by Mr. 

 Elliot's want of acquaintance with the plants enumerated. As 

 I shall show, his first species from " Central Watershed " is identical 

 with his ninth, from "Masai and Shire Highlands"; his fifth from 

 " Comoros and Arabia " is synonymous with his tenth, "General 

 (not Western)." By this geographical arrangement, moreover, 

 allied plants are widely separated : thus we are told that species 23 

 is "allied to" No. 10, and that species 24 is "nearly allied" to 

 No. 16. 



Mr. Elliot's first species is " P. verticillata K. Schum. ined. 

 MSS. in Herb. Kew.," for which he cites Fischer No. 319 and 

 Elliot No. 8045. The first only is the type — i. e. the plant so 

 named by the author of the supposed species. This is a fragmentary 

 specimen consisting of the upper part of a stem with a head of 

 flowers and a few leaves ; Elliot No. 8045, identified with it by the 

 reviser, is a still smaller scrap. Both at once recall P. lomjijiora 

 Oliv. ; and Dr. Schumann informs me that Fischer No. 319 in the 

 Berlin Herbarium, whence the Kew specimen was sent, certainly 

 belongs to that species, and that he has no intention of publishing 

 that plant as new. It is difficult to understand why Mr. Elliot 

 did not consult Dr. Schumann before casting upon the world an 

 entirely new name, without a word of description. 



Placed with these fragments at Kew is a handsome plant col- 

 lected at Kambole, Tanganyika, in 1896, by Mr. W. H. Nutt ; if 

 this belongs to the genus, it is a very distinct and striking species. 



The fact that two other species of Neurocarpaa have been sent out 

 from Berlin bearing MS. names seems to render necessary some 

 protest against the circulation of such names, especially when these 

 are merely temporary, and subsequently abandoned by their authors. 

 One of these species is cited by Mr. Elliot as " P. rolubilis K. Schum. 

 MSS.," with an odd note — ' ' no description appended to the spccimeh 

 — as though such appendage were an ordinary practice. This has 

 since been published by Dr. Schumann in E7V/I. Bot. Jnhrh, xxiii. 

 421 (Nov. 24, 1896). The other, sent from "Berlin both to the 

 British Museum and Kew, Dr. Schumann has no intention of pub- 

 lishing, having since identified the plant — Preuss No. 664, a number 

 not cited by Mr. Elliot — with N. {P.) occidentalis. The practice of 

 circulating MS. names is not a new one — we have in Pallas's 

 herbarium plants bearing the MS. names under which they were 



