GRONOVius's 'flora virginica.' 265 



turn founded on Apocy^ium Mariammi erectum Linarim angustissimus 

 foliis umbellatum — Apocyno recto 71071 ramoso. Boris viamii foliis 

 umhellis jiorum candidis Plunkenet \_sic\ , Mantissa, 17, pi. 336 (1700)." 



It is, I think, perfectly clear that Clayton's plant must be re- 

 garded as the type of LinnEens's description. Gronovins's descriptive 

 phrase stands as the first citation in the Species Plantar urn, and this 

 alone, by the American rule of priority in place, would entitle it to 

 be considered as the foundation of the Linnean species. The 

 references to Plukenet and Petiver — the latter author, by the way, 

 is also cited by Gronovius, and has, I think, an equal claim with 

 Plukenet to consideration — are the same (save for slight textual 

 variation) as in the Flora Virgi7iica, but LinnsGUS places them after 

 the Gronovian description. 



There is in this case no doubt as to the identity of the plant in 

 all three references ; but in the quite possible event of a difference 

 between them, it becomes important to know which is absolutely 

 the type of the species. 



I would point out incidentally that Miss Vail's citation from the 

 Ma7itissa, although placed in inverted commas, is not an exact 

 quotation, and does not quite accurately represent what Plukenet 

 said. This w^ill be evident if the following transcription of the 

 passage be compared with that quoted above : " Apocynum Maria7ium 

 erectum Linariae angustissimis foliis umbellatum, apud D. Doodij. 

 Apocyno recto non ramoso Eorismarini foliis umbellis florum 

 candidis Almagest. Bot. [36] plurimum convenit." The last four 

 words, which imply a certain doubt as to the identity of the two 

 plants, are omitted by Miss Vail ; but the uncertainty was also 

 expressed by Petiver (Mus. no. 609), who is, equally with Pluke- 

 net, cited by Gronovius and Linnaeus, and who calls the plant 

 "Apocynum Marianum foliis angustissimis stellatis," adding 

 "rtw? A. erect, non ramosum Eorismarini folio," etc. 



This latter synonym first appears in the list of plants at the end 

 of Bay's Hist. Plant, (pp. 1926 (sphalm. " 1928")-1928), " e Cata- 

 logo hue transmisso Anno 1680, quem composnit eruditissimus Vir 

 et consummatissimus Botanicus D. Johannes Ba7iister Plantarum a 

 seipso in Virginia observatarum." It stands sixth in his list of 

 Apocyni, and is called ''Apoc. erect, non ram. Boris marini foliis 

 umbellis florum candidis." In the collection of plants from Banister 

 in Herb. Sloane xcii (fol. 16) is a specimen with a ticket by Plukenet, 

 ''Apocyn. rect. Virg. Bosmarini fol. D. Banister. Linariae foliis 

 potius" ; and in the same Herbarium (xxxvii. fol. 86) is a Maryland 

 specimen from Krieg or Vernon, to which is appended in Bay's hand 

 a note : "An Apocynu 6tum Banist. Cat." 



It may be worth while to note that we have also in Herb. Sloane 

 other specimens : from Carolina, Catesby (ccxii. 30) ; Virginia, Mar- 

 shall (clviii. 290) ; Maryland, Jones or Krieg (Ixxiv. 68) and 

 Vernon (ccxlvi. 24). Marshall's specimen bears a note in his 

 hand: — " This is y® Sneak Boot good to expell y^ bite of a Battle 

 Sneak" ; it is identified by Petiver with no. 609 of his Museum. We 

 have also a specimen and drawing in William Young's collection of 

 Carolina plants (1767). 



