360 



Linnaeus did not incorporate in G. linoides till 1774. He there- 

 fore, like Lamarck in 1783, and like Chamisso and Schlechtendal 

 in 1826, looked upon these two plants as conspecific, and the fact 



doubt an accident. 

 When on furthe 



herbarium 



m 



he adopted Lamarck's treatment in so far as typical G. linoides, 

 Lamk (the true G. linoides, Linn.), is concerned, and only went one 

 step further than Lamarck in treating as two distinct varieties the 

 two plants which Lamarck had treated as one variety. Chamisso 

 apparently did not, when reconsidering the question, again refer 

 to the description which Jarosz had provided for his G. emarginata. 

 When this is done it is seen that, even if Jarosz did mean the 

 name G. emarginata to cover both C. vulgaris, ft intermedia, 

 Cham., and G. vulgaris, y lychnoides, Cham., the description itself 

 excludes ft intermedia and applies only to G. vulgaris, y lych- 

 noides, Cham. 



G. nudicaulis was only alluded to in 1826. In 1831 Chamisso 

 treated the original G. nudicaulis, Linn, f., as one variety (a tabu- 

 lar tx) of a species to which he referred, as a second variety 

 (i> elongata), a plant received from the Cape as C. elongata, Eckl. 

 Mbh. C. elongata is a rather narrow-leaved form of the true 

 G.jasminoides, Linn., and Chamisso was clearly right in treating 

 this plant and C. nudicaulis, Linn, f., as varieties of one species, 

 inere is nothing in the text to show that in applying to G. nudi- 

 caulis the new epithet " tabularis," Chamisso was endeavouring to 

 account for G. tabularis, Page, or indeed to suggest that Chamisso 

 was aware of the existence of Page's name. The epithet is 

 appropriate for G. nudicaulis, since this form is almost exclusively 

 restricted to Table Mountain. 



E. Meyer in 1837 (Comm. PL Afr. Austr., ii., pp. 177-182) 



described the species collected in South Africa by Drege. On 



^^^ T^' i? n '' he based the 8 emi s Orphium, so that by cita- 

 p Zt?S P m f rutescens > E. Mey., and G frutescens, Linn, are 

 m?n« ^ n ° n J m r S, T. P 80 ha PP e ™, however, that all the speci- 

 1116118 S, SLSfe *~ KG, caryophylloides, Linn. 



ngusti folia, Sims), so that, as regards description, 0. / 



angustifolia 



f 



RnotwT? 68 * Ghir on™ were treated by Meyer as types of 

 wis IS ? S ' f loc ^a, E. Mey. P. albens, the first of these, 

 ft rJ^ata Thl° 1 *Z° -^^ ,° r ^ties-a' « robustior," and 

 BurSfm* murr eT " * P i ant that had been Ascribed by 

 mrtus Z, m JlT'l "*' & 226 > as C.palustris ; the former is 



wa/S v ~ I ft at £ • The other s P ecies > P - purpurascens, 

 (Gen ^ PMi^SOS) ** 1876 by Bentham and Hooker 



leavisTnd^uW? 1 ^-',,^ described > * • species with narrow 

 i;!L e l a ?^ ^wP^date corolla-lobes. With it DnW ™th «™l *n nth fi r 



arenaria 



proper. Schoch, who detected 



