69 
In the case of C. Rottleri, Geiseler (i.c. p. 54) described as new 
a species of which a specimen had been sent to Vahl by Rottler 
trom Southern India. The species was not a new one because the 
specimen on which it was based represents the shrubby condition 
ot the plant described by Burmann in 1768 both as C. tinctorium, 
Burm. f. non Linn. and as C. hastatum j5, Burm. f. non C. has- 
tatum, Linn.; again described by Lamarck in 1786 both as C. 
tinetorium, var. j3 and as U. tinctorium, var. y; and described 
a third time by Willdenow in 1805 as C. moluccanum, Willd. non 
Linn. Since, however, none of these earlier names is valid, 
Geiseler’s name is that accepted for this species. 
In dealing with C. tinctorius, Geiseler (l.c. p. 68), by exclud- 
ing the reference, interpolated by Willdenow, to the figure by 
Gesner of a plant raised at Padua a century and a half earlier 
from seed received from Crete, reverted to the Linnean treatment 
of the lournesol in 1753. 
n 
the same specimen. The opportunity he had of studying that 
Geiseler’s citation. of the prostrate Indian species which is the 
basis of C. plicatum, Willd. non Vahl, was the result of his 
Lamk, was due to want of opportunity to examine the Lamarck 
herbarium. Had Geiseler seen the Sonnerat specimens in 
not to C. plicatum, Vahl, but to his own C. Rott ert. . 
In dealing with C. obliquus, Geiseler (l.c. p. 71) was again 
able, from an examination 0 the actual type, to supplement 
Vahl’s original description by adding that in this species the 
i his case the absence of an opportunity 
due to want of access to the Willdenow 
se of C. moluccanum, Willd. 
non L as described by Willdenow, 
includes the form described by Geiseler as C. Rottleri. Under 
