287 



Atlantica ii. (1800) p. 60, had le-establislied tlie Tournefoitiau 

 genus, giving a diagnosis of it and of P. lutea [Phelipaea 

 lusitanica, flore luteo, Tourn.) and a description of a new species 

 P. molacea as well as excellent figures of both of them. No 

 reference was made to the Oriental plant and the generic descrip- 

 tion was evidently drawn up from the two species mentioned, 

 with which he was, of course, particularly familiar; hut in his 

 Choix de Plantes du Corollaire de Tournefort, published 

 originally in the Annales du Museum d'Histoire Naturelle, 

 vol. X. (1807) and separately in 1808, he added it under the 

 name of P. Tournefortii with a very full description accompanied 

 by Aubriet's figure and also pointed out certain differences 

 between Phelipaea as understood by him and Lathraea and 

 Orohanche. Poiret, in Encyclopedie Methodique, vol. v. (1804) 

 pp. 267, 2G8, had by that time come to a similar conclusion, 

 except that according to him P. coccinea {Orohanche coccinea, 

 of Marschall and W 



wa s 



uncertain about Tournefort's Phelipaea orientalis, fl 



coccineo which he placed curiouslv enough as a possible synonym 

 under Phelipaea lutea. In 1784 Thunberg in Nova Genera 

 Plantarum p. 91, quite independently of Tournefort had estab- 

 lished a genus Phelypaca on a South African plant, also a 

 parasite but of vei^ different affinity. With Thunberg's and 

 Desfontaines' definitions of Phelipaea before him A._ L. de 

 Jussieu submitted the two genera to a critical examination the 

 results of which he embodied in a " Memoire sur le genre 

 Phelipaea de M. Thunberg et sur d'autres plantes qui portent 

 le meme nom " in Annales du Museum d'Histoire Naturelle, 

 vol. xii. (1808) pp. 439-447. Having proved the generic 

 identity of Thunberg's Phelypaca with Lmnaeus Cytinus he 

 proceeds to analyse Desf(mtaines' genus of the same nanie witH 

 great acuteness and clearness. He, too, points out that Ueston- 

 taines drew his characters of the genus in the first place froni 

 the two Atlantic species which might or might not be referred 

 to Orohanche, whilst his third species, i.e. Phelipaea lovrne- 

 fortii approaches Aeginetia* and he concludes by saying U est 

 possible de laisser les deux genres separes, de conserver 

 Vaeginetia de M. Roxburg, et de leserver le nom ph eh pa e a 

 plus ancien, pour la plante de Tournefort et ^elle de M 

 Willdenow, f ormant ou deux especes ou une seule. De toutes 



n-es, ce nom retranche a la plante de M. ^ j^^^il'^^^g' F^^* 

 difficulte etre restituee a une des plantes de Touinefoit 



manieres, 



sans 



qui le possedoient primitivement." .It was t^^f^f^^^^J^^^^^^ 

 who for the first time clearly recognised the l^e^.^^^f^f "^^ ^^ 

 Tournefort's genus and reduced it to the original O^'l^^tal el men 

 on which Tournefort had based his description and illustration of 



''"TJ^LTunately no notice was taken of ^-^^nXerGener^ 

 when Wallroth in 1825 published his Orobanches Geneiis 



• This ^vas already su-ested by Aclanson (Familled.PUi. (1763) 207) 

 sunk Aeqinetia A Fhelipaea and by Lamarck (Encycl. xMeth. n. [um) 



who sunk Aeqinetia in 



28). 



