359 



corresponds to G. lychnoides, Cham. & Schlecht., not of Berg. (1826) 

 so far as the forms (2) with ovate acuminate calyx-lobes an<l 

 (3) with narrow triangular calyx-lobes are concerned — (2) of 1826 

 being that portion of /3 intermedia of 1831 with " rather short " 

 calyx-lobes, while (3) of 1826 is that portion of /3 intermedia 

 with " elongated " calyx-lobes. On the other hand G. vulgaris, 

 y lychnoides, Chain. (1831), corresponds to G. lychnoides, Cham. & 



Schlecht., not of Berg. (1826), so far only as the form (1) with broad 

 rounded submucronulate calyx-lobes is concerned. 



In 1826 Chamisso and Schlechtendal indicated that their G. lych- 

 noides, which is very unlike 0. lychnoides, Linn., and while it 

 includes at least two distinguishable forms, is not even in part 

 identical with the original G. lychnoides, Berg., corresponds to 

 G. emarginata, Jarosz, a species published in 1821 (PL Nov. Gap., 

 p. 11). They were, however, unable to take up this name, partly 

 because Jarosz did not attach his determination to the specimens 

 on which he based his description, partly because they considered 

 all the descriptions of Jarosz to be imperfect. The description 

 which Jarosz has given of C. emarginata is, however, satisfactory, 

 and whatever may be the case as regards descriptions by Jarosz 

 of suggested new species in other genera, the general criticism of 

 Chamisso and Schlechtendal fails in this particular case. It has, 

 however, to be remembered that when Jarosz proposed the 

 recognition of his 0. emarginata, the object he had in view was 

 that at which Chamisso and Schlechtendal themselves were aiming, 

 viz. : — the definite segregation from the original G. linoides, Linn., 

 of the foreign elements which Linnaeus himself, in both cases at 

 the expense of intercalating characters that exclude his original 

 plant of 1753, had unfortunately added to G. linoides proper in 

 1767 and 1774. 



An effort to attain this object, though possibly an unconscious 

 one, was made by Bergius in 1767, when he limited the name 

 G. linoides to the plant for the first time incorporated by Linnaeus 

 in that species in 1774, and proposed for the true G. lino i das the 

 new name G. lychnoides. We have no means of judging whether 

 Bergius intended the name G. linoides to be restricted to the 

 particular plant represented in his herbarium and described m his 

 work, because Bergius appears never to have seen the other plant 

 included in G. lychnoides, Cham. & Schlecht., not of Berg, norot 

 Linn., which Linnaeus incorporated in C. linoides in 17b i. We 

 know, however, that when in 1783 Lamarck again endeavoured to 

 effect the necessary segregation— for Lamarck's C. htwuies, var. 

 ( variete beaucoup plus petite), is identical with C. ty*"™*** Cham. 

 & Schlect., not of Berg, nor of Linn.-he included both the Lin- 

 "ean plants that are alien to G. linoides in his segregate When 

 the attempt was repeated a third time in 1 ! 94 by rhunberg 

 we have seen that, although C. lychnoides, Thunb., is not ; clear y 

 dealt with, the probability is that he intended this name to apply 

 to the true G linoides/ Unn., and we know ^ * » 

 C. linoides, Thunb., is definitely restricted to the alien foim 

 incorporated by Linnaeus in his widened **%** ** ™jl 

 But in this instance we have evidence Oat the ^^^J" 

 fortuitous and not deliberate, because Thnn ^* ^wWch 

 gathered, and issued as C. linoides, specimens of the plant wmen 



p 



