NOTES ON PENTAS. 131 



Kilimanjaro plant, which was identified by the author of the species 

 with the original P. jmrpurea founded on Grant's plant (which Mr. 

 Elliot assigns to "Speke") — i.e. with Mr. Elliot's "var. a. ti/pka." 

 There may, of course, be reasons for difierentiatiug the two plants ; 

 but Mr. Elliot does not give them. It is to be regretted that he 

 does not make it clear which of the " Speke" (i. e. Grant) specimens 

 cited is the type of the species ; the Zanzibar plant which stands 

 first in the enumeration was not included by Prof. Oliver in his 

 purpurea, but was doubtfully referred by him to P. carnea ; the 

 type of pnrj)urea was the Usui plant. 



With regard to Mr. Elliot's new species, it is unfortunate that 

 he gives no indication of their affinities. One would like to know, 

 for example, how P. Thonisunii contrasts with P. Schhnperiana, 

 to which the specimens in the Kew Herbarium were originally re- 

 ferred. 



It remams to be said that Mr. Elliot has exhausted neither the 

 specimens nor the literature which lay ready to his hand. Several 

 plants in the British Museum Herbarium, named by him in MS., 

 find no place in the revision. In his prefatory note, Mr. Elliot 

 says: "Great difficulty has arisen from the new species which 

 have been described in the interval betwixt writing and reading 

 this paper," but difficulties of this kind are incident to every mono- 

 grapher. Yet as the paper was not published until Nov. 1896, it 

 would seem that P. modesta Baker, published in December, 1895, in 

 the Bull. Misc. Ivfurm. for November of that year might have been 

 added ; and it is impossible to account for the absence of P. War- 

 liunjiana K. Sch., cited in Engl. & Prantl, Pflanzenfamil. iv. 4, 29 

 (1891). 



At the end of the revision Mr. Elliot deals with the "excluded 

 species" in a somewhat eccentric manner. He quotes " P. speciosa 

 Baker," without any reference to its place of publication, and adds: 

 "This is a new species of Otomeria closely allied to 0. dilatata ; 

 this latter genus should, I think, be included in Pentas, but it is 

 distinctly not advisable to make alterations in the genera unless the 

 entire order is monographed." This, it may be hoped, is to be 

 regarded rather as a counsel of perfection than as a rule of life, and 

 clearly Mr. Elliot does not practise what he preaches, otherwise we 

 should have been spared this "revision." But will it be believed 

 that after this expression of opinion as to the identity of Otomeria 

 with Pentas, and these lofty sentiments as to "alterations in genera," 

 Mr. Elliot proceeds to coin a new name for P. speciosa, which he 

 styles "Otomeria speciosa Elliot"! He further darkens counsel by 

 saying "the original Otomeria dilatata Hiern contains the following 

 plants " ; most of those he enumerates had not even been collected at 

 the time when "the original O. dilatata''' was published ! Even in 

 transcription, both of references and localities, carelessness is ob- 

 servable — e.(j. " 203 miles south of Niamkolia " should read " 20 miles 

 south of Niomkoto." 



Mr. Elliot omits from the excluded species P. 'I'hojiiiijii/ii Wlprs. 

 MSS. (= licdi/utis pentandra Schum. k Thonn.), as well as other 

 exclusions given by Jackson, io whicli I have already referred. 



K 2 



