XOTES FROM THE XATTOXAL TlEEBARirM 313 



BURCHELLIA CAPEXSIS R. Br. 



The plant generally known by this name can hardly retain it. It 

 is the Lonicera huhalina of Linn. Suppl. (14(5) and Suns figures and 

 describes it as B. huhalina. lie quotes Brown's later name, but says: 

 " We can by no means approve of altering the specific name, which, 

 when once established, should remain inviolate, except for very 

 particular reasons ; we have therefore thought it right to restore the 

 name of huhalina.'''' As the making of a new combination is not 

 involved, it may be worth while to call attention to the name, Avhicli, 

 with synonymy, should stand as follows : — 



BuRCHELLiA BUBALTXA Sims, Bot. Mag. 2359 (Aug. 1822). 



Lonicera huhalina Linn. Suppl. 146 (1781). 



Cephaelis huhalina Pers. Syn. i. 202 (180-5) et auct. plur. 



Burchellia capensis K. Br. in Bot. Reg. 466 (1820) et auct. 

 recent. 

 " The shrub is called Buffelhorn (Buffaloe-horn) by the Dutch 

 colonists at the Cape from the hardness of the wood, according to 

 Mr. Masson " (Bot. Beg. 1. c.) : to this the llinnean name huhalina 

 refers, although W. Smith (Lat. Engl. Diet.) enters the word as 

 "pertaining to the African gazelle." In the Solander MSS. 

 (v. 643-7), under Lonicera huhalina, is a full description in 

 Bacstrom's hand, doubtless transcribed from Masson's MSS. : at the 

 end of this is a table showing how the plant differed fi*om other 

 genera of Muhiacece, to which it had been ascertained by Jussieu to 

 belong. There are specimens from Masson in Herb. Banks, the 

 locality of Avhich is stated (in Sol. MSS.) as "in sylvis Houtniquat 

 trans Krom Bivier." 



Digitalis TOiiE]\'TOSA Sims. Bot. Mag. t. 2194 (1821). 

 This plant seems to have been overlooked in Ind. Kew., probably 

 because it was considered identical with I), tomenfosa Hoft'm. & Link. 

 (Fl. Portugaise, i. 220, 1809). Sims, however, diagnoses his plant 

 as new, and, after a full description, continues : '' We have not found 

 any thing said about this species, but are informed that it was 

 received from Vienna under the name that we have adopted, b}'' 

 Mr. Anderson, of the Chelsea garden, where it flowered, and our 

 drawing was taken in June, 1819. But we find by a specimen from 

 Philip Miller, now in the Banksian Herbarium, that it was cultivated 

 by him, and su])posed to be Digitalis Thapsi. From which, hoAvcA^er, 

 it seems to differ in many material points, as in the leaves being 

 of the same colour on both sides, supported on long foot-stalks, not 

 sessile ; in the greater length of the bractes ; in the flowers not being 

 secund or looking one way, and of a brighter colour. These plant 



are, however, too nearly allied, and perhaps may only be varieties of 

 the same species." The sheet containing Miller's specimens bears a 

 note by Robert Brown: "a Thapsi differt calycis foliis cordatis 

 ovato-lanceolatis (nee lanceolato-ovatis) bracteis acuminatis pedun- 

 culos superantibus foliis utrinque pubescentibus concoloribus." It is 

 however, probably a form of D. ±liapsi, and is not identical with 

 D, tomenfosa Hoffm. & Link, which is referred to D. j^urpurea. 



