54 
tassel or plume, that the etymology must be xpocaos and ¢gopos, 
wrote the name Crossophora. With this exception, the ortho- 
graphy of Jussieu and Sprengel was copied by Spach (Hist. Veg. 
11.) and Decaisne (Florul. Sin.) in 1834, the younger Nees (Gen. 
Pl. Germ.) in 1835, Endlicher (Gen. Pl.) in 1840, Reichenbach 
(Ic. Fi. Germ. et Helv.) in 1841, Ledebour (FI. Ross.) in 1849- 
51, Bunge (Rel. Lehm.) in 1851, Payer (Organogén.) in 1857,” 
Baillon (Etud. gén. Euphorb.) in 1858, Dalzell (Fl. Bomb.) and 
Klotzsch (Mossamb. Bot.) in 1861, Schweinfurth (Pl. Nilot. and 
other treatises) in 1862 and subsequent years, Miiller (DC. Prodr.) 
in 1866, and Boissier (Fl. Orient.) in 1879. 
_ A partial exception to the adoption of Sprengel’s treatment 
oecurred in 1836, when Visiani (Pl. quaed. Aegypt. ac Nub.) 
figured two species of our genus, one as a Chrozophora, the other 
as a Croton. Schweinfurth has suggested (PI. Nilot. p- 12) that 
this segregation may have been due to imperfect characterisation 
of Croton by Necker and Endlicher. But Endlicher did not 
describe Croton till 1840, and there is nothing to suggest that 
Visiani went behind Ad. Jussieu. We know, however, that the 
stamens in the species which Visiani referred to Croton are 3-ver- 
ticillate, in that referred by him to Chrozophora the anthers are 
e-verticillate, so that Visiani may have been influenced by this 
character as much as by the calycine one to which he and 
Schweinfurth have alluded. 
Bee himself; it is a Caperonia. Presl’s further note reads :— 
