336 



THE JOURNAL OF BOTANY 



The list includes a species of Geaster, two marine Algcd, and 

 "Equisetum sub aqua repens ad genicula polyspermon " which 

 Sir J. E. Smith, doubtless erroneously, identifies as Chara gracilis, 

 the only species recently recorded being G. fragilis, G. aspera, 

 G. vulgaris and Nitella flexilis. 



ON THE NAME LAMPROTHAMNUS Braun. 

 By James Geoves, F.L.S. 



Some years ago Dr. Nordstedt drew our attention to the fact 

 that the name Lamp-otliamnus, given by Alexander Braun to a 

 genus of CharacecB, and first published in 1882, in Braun and 

 Nordstedt's Fragments ei^ier Monographie der Gharaceen, pp. 16 

 and 100, was then already taken up, having been given by 

 Mr. Hiern to a genus of Buhiacece pubHshed by him in 1877 

 (El. Trop. Africa, iii, p. 130). It has therefore become necessary 

 to rename the genus of Gharacece. Acting on a suggestion of 

 Dr. Eendle, that a name should be chosen as near as possible to 

 Lamprothamnus while sufficiently distinct to avoid confusion, I 

 now propose the name Lampeothamnium. 



The difficulty as regards the nomenclature of this genus 

 unfortunately does not end with the generic name. The single 

 species referred to it is now generally known by the specific name 

 alopecuroides, or alopecuroidea, first published as Ghara alopecu- 

 roidea by Braun in 1849, in his Uehersicht der Schwcizerischen 

 Gharaceen, p. 13, and based on a MS. name of Dehle. There are, 

 however, no less than three earUer published names belonging 

 undoubtedly to this species, viz. Ghara pcL2mIosa, Wallroth (1833); 

 G. Pouzolsii, Braun (1835) ; G. WallrotUi, Ruprecht (1845). 



The first of these names is an unfortunate one. As Dr. Nord- 

 stedt has pointed out to me, the papulae on the internodes of the 

 stem, described by Wallroth, and upon which he based the name, 

 were no part of the plant, but consisted of a separate organism 

 with which it was infested ; and Ruprecht, recognising this, re- 

 named the plant C. Wallrothii, quoting "C/i. papulosa Wallr. 

 1833 excl. papul." I do not think the name papulosa had been 

 used for the plant by anyone but its author until it was quite 

 recently revived under the genus Lamprothamnus by Beguinot 

 and Formiggini. The second name — C. Pouzolsii — was given by 

 Braun to a form of the plant from Corsica. 



It is clear that the name of alopecuroides (or alopecuroidea) 

 cannot stand if we accept art. 48 of the " International Rules," 

 which prescribes the retention of the earliest specific name when 

 the species is removed to another genus. The question then arises 

 whether or not the earliest name papulosa, given as it was under 

 an entire misapprehension, ought to be maintained, and upon this 

 point no doubt there will be a difference of opinion. 



There can be no question that, in the circumstances, the name 

 was an entirely inappropriate one, but art. 50 of the " Rules " 



