298 smith's GEORGIAN PLANTS. 



for the systematic names and definitions ; that department having 

 been left altogether unattempted by Mr. Abbot." 



Although the few species of plants here first published have not 

 been altogether overlooked, they have been variously quoted and 

 often at secondhand from the abstract published by Roemer in 1801 

 (Archiv ii. 400-4). As the types are for the most part in the 

 J3anksian Herbarium, I have looked these up ; and it seems worth 

 while to place on record the results of my investigation. Two 

 species are in the Linnean Herbarium, and I have included 

 references to these, in order that all the novelties in the work cited 

 might be brought together in one paper. I quote under each in the 

 first instance the description given by Smith. 



ASCLEPIAS AMPLEXICAULIS. 



" The species of Swallow- wort now before us is, we believe, a 

 nondescript, though formerly cultivated in the Kew Garden, and 

 now preserved in Sir Joseph Banks's Herbarium. It should be in- 

 serted among the first species in the Systema Vegetabilium, and may 

 be denominated Asclepias amplexicaulis, foliis sessilibiis cllipticis 

 undiilatis glaherrimis : hasi cordatis ample xicaulihus, umhellis termi- 

 nalibiis.'^ (Vol. i. t. vii. p. 13.) 



The specimen in Herb. Banks, leaves no doubt as to the 

 identity of this plant with A, ohtusifoUa Michaux (Fl. Bor. Amer. 

 i. 115 (1803) ). The Index Kewensis refers the later and generally 

 received A. amplexicaulis Mich. (I.e.) to A. humistrata Walt. — a 

 plant to which Michaux (/. c. 116) considered his amplexicaulis 

 allied, and which Asa Gray (Proc. Amer. Acad. xii. 67) apparently 

 regarded as synonymous with it, although he says " floribus rubris 

 exceptis." 



Unfortunately there is no specimen of Walter's plant in his 

 herbarium, but Miss Vail, the most recent authority on this genus, 

 considers it practically certain that humistrata Walt, must be 

 adopted as the name for the species. 



A. ohtusifoUa Mich, is considered by Asa Gray [I.e.) as identical 

 with A. yurpurascens of Walter (not of Linnaeus), and Walter's 

 specimen supports this conclusion: A, purpurascens Walt, is thus 

 the earliest name for the plant. A. purpurascens L. is generally 

 considered identical with A. amcena L., which has priority of place 

 both in Hort. Elthamensis (on which the two species are founded) 

 and in the Species Plantarum. Even those who do not attach im- 

 portance to the position of a name upon a page will agree that it is 

 allowable in cases like this to adopt either name, and the creation 

 of new names might be avoided if A. amcena were adopted for the 

 two Linnean plants, taking^, purpurascens Walt, for A. ohtusifoUa 

 Mich. The names would then stand respectively thus : — 



A. amoena L. Sp. PL 214 (1737). 



A. jnirpurascens L. Sp. PI. 214, non Herb.,''' and of American 

 authors. 



* The A. imrimrascens of Linn. Herb., which, as Asa Gray has noted upon 

 the sheet, does not agree with Liunoeus's description, is identified by Miss Vail 

 ith A. incarnata L. 



