342 



results are based. This evidence is given here, and in its presen- 

 tation the limitation and subdivision of the genera and the inci- 

 dence of the names applied to their species are separately con- 

 sidered. As bearing equally upon, and as linking these two 

 distinct questions, a coDspectus of the Chironiineae, to which both 

 genera belong, is intercalated, while the notes conclude with a 

 statement of the synonymy of the African plants that have been 

 referred to Chironia. For the synonymy of such extra-African 

 species as have been placed in that genus reference may be made 

 to the Index Keivensis. 



ronia 



*f 



pp. 189, 190) belong to Exacum or to Sabbatia. Lamarck, Persoon, 

 and Willdenow were equally undetermined. The last-named writer 

 '<? 7 1 ? numerated sixteen species, of which nine belong to Exacum, 

 babbaha or Erythraea. Its confusion with these alien genera 



Nov. Holl 



(Prodr, 



Brown was not the earliest author to realize the unsatisfactory 

 nature of Chironia as established by Linnaeus. Necker in 1790 

 {Mem., ii., p. 32) proposed a genus Valerandia to include some of 

 tne unnean species, and in dealing with what he considered 

 Chtroma proper, Necker further (ibid. p. 33) excluded from the 

 genus the only species that has a berry-like fruit. Necker looked 

 on tins species, C. baccifera, Linn., as entitled to generic rank, but 



Tm^T % n °7 S eneric name ? this was done by Moench in 1802 

 {Meth. biippl, p. 212), when he termed it Roeslinia. This treat- 

 ment of G. baccifera is probably defensible ; it has, however, rarely 

 been adopted, and although the status of a section accorded to 

 Roeslinia by Endlicher in 1838 (Gen. PI., p. 601) is inadequate, 

 the case is perhaps, for the moment, sufficiently met bv the recog- 

 nition of Roeslinia as a sub-genus of Chironia. 



<J^° WD ' b S? id 2 B bein S the first to establish Chironia as a natural 

 genus, was the first to suggest its further subdivision ; five of his 



seven anemia woro t^r^t^A ~~ c r , .^- ., ., . ^ , 



/era (Roeslmia, Moench) and C.frutescem ( 

 «.o« j ' Dubiae ~~ 



(L 



™ \t a + B v. r ° Wn ' f0r 5 *»™, Cham., and § Legitim 



are the same thing as are also § Spuria*, Cham., and s wmu* 



? i£ fl • ' m de . fimn S bis sections, Chamisso has stated that 



§ 



§ 



baccifera, not as regards G. fi 



that is 



l$F(rZ T\ 18 n C ^ pS . ule - C °Py in S thi8 treatment,G. Don in 

 varietv In ^v ? ard -\ W " * 203 )' P laced & frutescens and its 

 ToesLr g lt{° ha > al0ng With °- ^ccifera, in the genus 



S m ; a 97) * 1839™ ^ C ° rreCted by Gri8ebach C** & 8 *' 



Witt ^he 'South 3 ! f (CW Pl ^ A "*- *■ PP- 177 " 182 ) dealin ^ 

 ChLTa 3 \Afric an material collected by Drege, broke up 



in XhCstm ed , by 5^?' int0 three * enera H5 Chironia, 

 of tie t^ll * ^ tamed C ' bacci f e ™ (Roeslima3loench) t one 



tne other member of the Dubiae, or Spuria*, was made the type 



