357 



legitimate and two doubtful species. The specimens at the British 

 Museum indicate that G. jasminoides, R. Br., is the true G. fas- 

 minoides, Linn.; there are specimens in the British Museum 

 collection so named by Solander, and so accepted by Brown. 

 G. lychnoides, R. Br., may be assumed to be G. lychnoides, Linn.j 

 not the original G. lychnoides, Berg. ; although there is no sheet 

 on -which Brown has written the name G. lychnoides, the authentic 

 sheet of C. lychnoides, Linn., not of Berg., was within his reach. 

 At the same time we know that G. linoides, R. Br., is the true 

 G. linoides, Linn., for Brown had access to the actual plant cited 

 by Linnaeus from Hort. GlifforL, p. 54, n. 1, and it is this plant 

 which constitutes the original G. lychnoides, Berg. C. nudicaulis 

 and G. tetragona, enumerated by Brown, are the plants so named 

 by the younger Linnaeus. Brown's G. baccifera is G. baccifera. 



fi 



f< 



Not long after the appearance of Brown's important note a 

 species unknown in early collections found its way into European 

 gardens, and was cultivated under the name G. jasminoides. An 

 account of this plant, which is not G. jasminoides, Linn., and is 

 not either of the species dealt with under G. jasminoides by Thun- 

 berg, appeared in 1817 {Bat. Reg., iii., t. 197). In this case there 

 is no doubt as to the plant intended ; the figure supplied by 

 Edwards is excellent, and the description, presumably written by 

 Ker-Gawler, is full and accurate. Specimens of the plant occur 

 in various contemporary collections, notably one at Kew, originally 

 in the Herbarium of Sir W. Hooker, and one at Cambridge, 

 originally in the Lindley Herbarium. This species agrees with 

 both the species treated by Thunberg as G. jasminoides in having 

 an angled calyx, and in having solitary flowers on terminal 

 peduncles that are continuous with the branches. It agrees tolerably 

 well as regards foliage with the form of G. tetragona, Linn, f., 

 with sub-elliptic leaves that occurs on sheet y of G. jasminoides, 

 Thunb., in the Thunberg Herbarium, but is readily distinguished 

 from that plant by its ovate acute in place of broad foliaceous 

 calyx-lobes. It agrees with the plant described by Thunberg as 

 C. jasminoides (Herb. Thunberg, sheet a) as regards calyx-lobes, 

 but differs greatly in habit and foliage. It is, therefore, obviously 

 nearly allied to both, and differs as widely as they do from the 

 true G. jasminoides, Linn. The plant of the Botanical Register is, 

 in fact, a species that had not previously been described, and we 

 are indebted to an English nurseryman— Page, of Southampton- 

 tor having detected this fact and for supplying the species with a 

 distinctive name. In Page's catalogue (Page, Prodr., p. 121) issued 

 in 1817 we find the name G. tabular is (actually printed « tabulare ) 

 nsed in substitution for the name C. jasminoides, which appears m 

 contemporary plant-lists, and which, we know, did not indicate 

 either C. jasminoides, Linn., or C. jasminoides, Thunb., because 

 neither of these was then in cultivation. With the exception ot 

 Steudel, authors have treated 0. tabular is, Page, as a nomen nudum, 

 and therefore negligible. Grisebach, indeed, and-followmg Grise- 

 bach's example— Schoch have stated that Page's name is of doubtful 

 incidence. This, as the evidence adduced shows, is not the case 

 B nt if this evidence had been less conclusive than it is, all doubt 



