TllOPICAL AMEIUCAX KUBIACE.E 177 



tubus gracillimus extus subglaber, insuper sub limbo subito ampliatus, 

 lobis oblongo-orbieularibus subpatentibus apice rotundatis. 



Mexico : on loa)ii, in moist ravines, Tepic, Ma}', Barclay 1193 ! 



A shrub (3 ft. high, with white flowers. Leaves, about 8 cm. X 2 cm., 

 with petiole not exceeduig 4 mm. Heads, 8 mm. in diameter, 

 exclusive of the corollas. Calyx 25 mm. long ; corolla-tube 6-8 mm. 

 long ; lobes 1*5-2 mm. Quite distinct in its leaf-shape and texture, 

 and in the indumentum of the calyx. 



NOTES OX NOMENCLATURE. 



By James Brittex, F.L.S, 



I. The Restriction of Names " ex loco." 



In the course of his paper on Viola montana (Journ. Bot. 1916, 

 260) Mr. Wilmott calls attention to a point which seems to merit 

 more attention than it has received. The passage is likely to be 

 overlooked, and it appears worth while to reprint it. " The using of 

 local floras to precise names * ex loco' is," he says, '"illogical. 

 Obviously the author of a local flora is, in a sense, only dealing with 

 those forms of the sj^ecies which grow in his area, but he cannot in 

 any sense be regarded as restricting the name to those forms .... 

 Names in local floras, unless the contrary is definitely stated, are to be 

 regarded as identifications, the author merely referi-ing his plant to a 

 known species." Mr. Wilmott takes as an illustration of his view 

 the position assigned to Adonis annua in the British Museum List 

 of Heed-Plants, in which I fear Dr. Kendle and myself acted in con- 

 travention of this principle: "Hudson (1762) Fl. Angl. p. 209 has 

 (see Journ. Bot. 19u7, p. 43.5) been regarded as restricting the name 

 Adonis annua to the only British species, viz. A. autumnalis. This 

 is not so. All that Hudson meant is ' The British Adonis belongs to 

 A. annua Linn., other varieties of which occur outside Britain.' " 



I had expressed the view stated by Mr. Wilmott with some 

 clearness in this Journal for 1907, j). 283, in the course of a review of 

 Mr. Druce's account of Tlie Lillenian Herbarium in which he 

 applied Hill's name Hellehorine to the genus hitherto known as 

 Epipactis. My reasons against this now appear to me so cogent that 

 I am puzzled to explain my later concurrence in Mr. Druce's defence 

 of his position in adopting Hellehorine (see Journ. Bot. 1908, 8-10), 

 although in a note to this paper I stated that I still retained the 

 conviction " that Hill intended to restore the name as an equivalent of 

 the Linnean genus Sey-apias, as indeed his words indicate " (loc. 

 cit. p. 10). Mr. Druce points out that Hellehorine, as defined 

 by Hill, excludes the species now included in Serapias : the phrase, 

 " The leaves are broad and nervous, and the root is composed of 

 interwoven fibres " is not applicable to Serajnas as now understood. 

 Nevertheless, Hill's words — " [Linnseus] takes awa}^ the received name 

 {^Hellehorine'] and calls it Herapias'''' — make it quite evident that 

 Hill regarded the names as equivalent, although he naturally limits 



