87 
Boiss. was made to include specimens from Wadi Dachel in the 
Libyan waste, written up by Ascherson as C. obliqua, which really 
belong to the PeTPaaD species described by Vahl in 1790 as 
Croton obliquum 
In 1915 an instance was afforded of the difficulty experienced 
in correcting an inadvertence which has become incorporated in 
an authoritative work. In a careful cies of the vegetation of 
Aden, Blatter (Rec. Bot. Surv. Ind. vii. p. 332) has taken up from 
Miller not only the erroneous vetdsdhie to an Indian plant issued 
by Wallich (Cat. Lith. 7716 G) but also the erroneous name 
Chrozophora obliqua, Mill.-arg. (1866), non A. Juss. The adop- 
tion of Miiller’s name is in this instance the more remarkable 
when regard is had to the circumstance a the plant had its 
true name roe wal ti by sie and Hoffmann in 1912, and that a 
1860, di mn the true name, C. smaft, 8 
Tue SPECIES IN ENGLER’S PFLANZENREICH. 
The treatment of the genus in the ‘ Pflanzenreich’ in 1912 has 
already been explained. The species recognised are nine in 
number; one of the nine it has, however, been suggested may 
be of nips origin. 
in addition the inadvertent statement that the jae are nat 
yee 
tilts es (l.c. p. 19), is a combination of C. plicata, [. 
genuina, Miill.-arg. (1866) and y. prostrata, Miill.-arg. (1866), 
again with all the defects of the ‘ gp starhon os account and most 
of those in the account of Boissier, ee m has been adopted 
the suggestion of merging three distinct species in one. 
statement that this ‘ epee is ae tinctorial is partly true since 
the two Indian species, C. prostrata, Dalz. (1861) and C. parvi- 
folia, Klotzsch (1862), are not tinctorial. This statement, how- 
ever, is not applicable to the original C. plicata, A. Juss. (1826). 
3. C. Brocchiana (1.c. p. 20) is taken up from the * Prodromus’ 
with no change beyond that of suppressing Schweinfurth’s variety 
Hartmannii. 
4. C. Bi staat a - ce. p. 20) is taken up about ae 
from the ‘ Prodro 
5. C. tinctoria + va is C. tinctoria y. genuina, Miill.-a 
(1866). The belief as “ie the poisonous qualities of this plant 
is derived from Kobert (Lehrb. Intox. ii. p. 653) whose state- 
