79 
Visiani’s description. He also suggested that the Senegal plant 
with leaves woolly pei with long hairs might be another 
variety of C. Brocchia 
In 1864 Thwaites (teed: Pl. Zeyl. p. 443) first, and rb ne 
among authors who had dealt with Chrozophora since 1807, used 
the name C. Rottleri for the plant described by Geiseler as sites 
Rottleri, without confusing that plant with any other species. 
CHrozopHorsa IN DeCanpoLLE’s PRopROMUS. 
The important monograph of the genus by Miiller in 1866 
(DC. Prodr. xv. 2) has already been adverted to. The relation- 
ship to each other of the various forms recognised could hardly 
f : 
eclectic nomenclature are, however, less satisfactory. This is 
not because of the extreme reduction advocated; although 
Miiller included all the forms of the Plicatae group in one species 
and all those of the Tinctoriae group in two species, he did not 
take advantage of this to shirk any of the issues involved; he care- 
fully treated as distinct varieties the forms which earlier writers 
had regarded as separate species. Thus C. plicata, ae -arg. 
(l.c. p. 747) includes three varieties :—a. Rottler:, 3. genur 
y. prostrata; while C. tinctoria, Miill.-arg. (l.c. p. 748) facliades 
four raeeiete ge verbascifolia, (3. hierosolymitana, 7: genuina, 
and 6. subplic 
Bist: ag a. Rottleri is treated naturally. It includes 
| Croton Rottlerr Geis. (1807); Croton hastatum 8. Burm. f. (1768), 
which is the basis of Chrozophora Burmanni, Spr. (1826) ; Croton 
moluccanum, Willd. (1805), non Linn. It also includes — 
tinctorium, ie xb. ex] Wall. (1830); Croton a 
. ( 
a. Rottleri the Java Croton tinctorium, Burm. f. (1768) non ct 
which is only a cultivated condition of Croton hastatum o. 2 
has excluded Croton asperum, [Ham. ex] Wall. (1830), ‘hich i is 
the same thing as Croton asper, Koen. (1814); he has also ex- 
cluded Croton plicatum, Roxb. (1814) non Vahl, which, as Rox- 
burgh explained in 1832, is the same thing as Croton tinctorium, 
Burm. f. on the one hand and Croton asperum, Koen. on the 
other. More perplexing still is the reference by Miiller of 
Croton asperum, Ham., which by the actual type is his a. Rot- 
tleri, to his (3. genuina; and the reference of ng plicatum, 
Roxb., which also by its co-types is Miiller’s a. Rottleri, to his 
- prostrata. Misled by the employment by Wailisnow of the 
epithet ‘moluccanum,’ Miller has attributed a plant sent by 
Koenig from Devanur in Madras to the Moluccas, where no 
Cc hrozophora occurs. 
1b. C. plicata 8. genuina, believed by Miiller to correspond 
with Croton plicatum, Vahl (1790) in reality carefully excludes 
Vahl’s plant, since the variety has been based upon Chrozophora 
plicata, Schweinf. ( 1862) which is Hains oblauslol mang: This 
variety, copying Schweinfurth, includes C. , Klotzsch 
