53 
In the meantime, however, new species were being added to 
Ricinoides, Tournef. In 1717, Hermann (Zeyl. 202, t. 11) 
reported one from Ceylon; in 1728, Martyn (Hist. Pl. r. cent. 
1, ii. 38, 46) described two more from America. These, with 
others, were included, along with the Tournesol, in the genu 
Croton base y Linnaeus on the ruins of Tournefort’s 
Ricinoides, so that from the outset the Linnean complex wa 
even more confusing than that which it replaced. Notwith- 
standing all this, Moench, in 1794 (Meth. Pl. p. 286) proposed 
the revival of Tournefort’s name Ricinoides, as a substitute for 
the name Tournesolia of Scopoli. 
This attempt failed as those of Scopoli and Necker and 
Adanson had. The utility and convenience of his ‘ Species 
Plantarum ’ were so great and so undeniable as to make the 
authority of Linnaeus paramount, and the particular arrange- 
ment adopted in the case of Croton was followed, in spite of its 
imperfection, to mention only those authors who have added 
to our knowledge of Chrozophora, by Burmann (F/. Ind.) in 1768, 
by Forskal and his editor Zoega (FJ. Aegypt.-arab.) in 1775, b 
Lamarck (Encyc. Meth.) in 1786, by Vahl (Symb. Bot.) in 1790, 
by Willdenow (Sp. Pl.) in 1805, by Geiseler (Crot. Monogr.) 
in 1807, by Delile (FJ. Aegypt.) in 1812, by Sibthorp and 
Smith (F1. Graec.) in 1813, by Roxburgh (Hort. Beng.) 
in 1814, and by La Gasca (Gen. et Sp. Nov.) in 1816. So far 
as India is concerned, the Linnean usage lasted rather longer; 
raham Bomb.) in is however, was largely 
accidental. Graham’s local list was based o xburgh’s 
recently published work; Ainslie’s account was adapted from 
the names used by Roxburgh and his contemporaries and corres- 
pondents Buchanan (afterwards Hamilton), Heyne, Koenig, 
Rottler and Russell. 
When the generic status of Chrozophora, Neck., was re- 
vindicated by Ad. Jussieu in 1824 (Tent. Gen. Euph.), the 
spelling was changed to Crozophora. Jussieu’s action was 
accepted and endorsed by Sprengel (Syst. Veg. iii.) in 1826 
ink, who recognised the apt in 1831 (Handb. il. p. 438), 
assuming, though the plant bears no particular resemblance to a 
