NOTES ON NAUCLEE^. 339 



twenty years later ; it is strange to find, under Sarcocephalus escu- 

 lentus, that none of the early collectors — Afzelius, Don, Smeathnian, 

 Park — are mentioned, although the species was established on the 

 plants of the two former. Nor do we understand the meaning of 

 "n.?" which often follows the name of a collector, unless Mr. Havi- 

 land supposes that every one must have numbered his collections 

 somewhere or other, which is certainly not the case. Yet as he 

 omits many numbers which are easily ascertainable — e. ;/. those of 

 Schweinfurth (two collections) and Welwitsch at the top of p. 73 — 

 it can hardly be that he considers them essential. But whatever it 

 may mean, "n.?" is an undesirable addition to our list of symbols. 



I am sorry Mr. Haviland has not taken the opportunity of 

 revising the nomenclature of the group in accordance with the law 

 of priority. He is fully aware that certain changes would result 

 from such a revision, but he has "assumed that rules of priority 

 were made to help, and not to hinder," and on that assumption has 

 refused to make the necessary alterations. He says, "if [the rules] 

 were exactly followed, Uncaria would be Ouroujyarut, Sarcocephalus 

 would be Nauclea, Nauclea would have to be renamed, and probably 

 Mitrar/ijnavfOu.ldheMamhoga"; and it is difficult to see how the 

 substitution of these earlier names could be considered a hindrance. 

 They will certainly come in sooner or later, if they have not already 

 done so — Ourouparia, for example, as Mr. Haviland points out, has 

 been adopted by Baillon, K. Schumann,* and others, and the 

 conscious substitution by Schreber of Uncaria for this earlier 

 name seems quite unjustifiable. Six of Mr. Haviland's thirty-four 

 species are either new or are now first placed in the genus Uncaria ; 

 and no fitter opportunity could have been found for the return 

 to the earlier name. The retention of Nauclea necessitates the 

 statement "typus nullus" after the name; then, after a de- 

 finition of the genus as now understood, comes a reference to 

 " Nauclea Linn. Sp. PI. ed. 2, 243," followed by the remark, 

 "None of the plants called Nauclea by Linnteus are now in this 

 genus, though there is no doubt he would have called those in it 

 Nauclea if he had seen them." But as Mr. Haviland tells us else- 

 where that " Linnaeus founded his Nauclea oriental is on two species 

 of Sarcocephalus," it is difficult to see how the retention of his name 

 for the plants he described could be regarded as a "hindrance." 



The monographer has taken much trouble to see the types of 

 the species described, and in many cases indicates where these are 

 to be found. The anxiety to consult types, which is worthy of all 

 praise, may, however, be carried too far, and there are symptoms of 



* In Engler & Prantl's Nat. Pfianzenfamilien (iv. 4, 57, 1891) Dr. Schumann 

 adopts Aublet's spelling, Ourouparia; but in Pftanzen-Welt Ost Afrikas, th. C, 

 378 (1895), he alters this to Uruparia, apparently in order to accommodate the 

 name to Latin form. Alterations of this kind are likely to cause confusion, and 

 can hardly be justified. It is difticult, however, to see how restoration of 

 Ourouparia conforms with the Berlin rule, to which Dr. Schumann has given 

 his adhesion, by which it is not allowed to revive names which have been 

 ignored for tifty years. Everything tends to show that the present method of 

 local and often hasty legislation tends to increase rather than to diminish the 

 existing confusion in matters of nomenclature. 



z 2 



