56 
generic value; there are five distinguishable forms in the genus 
Chrozophora which share it. The reduction of Lepidocroton to 
Chrozophora eftected by Bentham in 1880 (Gen. Pl. iii. p. 305) 
seems, therefore, to be justified; it is at least free from the objec- 
tion which attends that proposed by Baillon in 1858 and accepted 
by Miller in 1866 (DC. Prodr. xv. 2, p. 751). When accepting 
Bentham’s reduction in 1912, Pax and Hoftmann (Pflanzenr. 1V. 
147, vi. p. 17) regarded as the type of Lepidocroton another 
Kordofan plant, gnlleoted by Kotschy at Abu Gerad and issued 
by Hochstetter as Kotschy n. 25, C. senegalensis, under which 
species the authors of the Pflanzenreich monograph account both 
for this specimen and for Presl’s genus. ‘This conclusion is open 
to the objection that Kotschy n. 25 has only seven to nine anthers 
whereas Lepidocroton should have fifteen. We know, however, 
that Kotschy did collect at Wolet Medine in Sennar another 
Chrozophora which was issued by Hochstetter as Kotschy n. 473, 
in which the male flowers have fifteen stamens. The species in 
question, C. plicata, A. Juss., is the only African Chrozophora 
which exhibits the character relied on by Pres] in distinguishing 
his genus Lepidocroton from Caperonia on the one hand and from 
Chrozophora on the other. For this reason it is to C. plicata 
that, in an account of the African species of Chrozophora pub- 
lished in 1912 (Fl. Trop. Afr. vi. 2, p. 885), Lepidocroton serra- 
tus has been referred. 
P.Br. (1756) to that of Tournesolia, Scop. (1777). But neither 
Bentham in 1880 (Gen. Pl. iii. p. 305), nor Pax in 1890 (Pflan- 
there is much to be sa 
When in 1880 Bentham reverted to the orthography originally 
employed by.Necker he cona@luded that the etymology of the word 
all but two botanists, since 1826, its validity and its ortho- 
graphy are not likely to be further impugned. 
