362 



work is essentially a precis of the account by Meyer, 

 in 1837, and of Grisebach's own work published in 



sheet y of G. fasminoides in Herb. Thunb., but not covered by 

 Thunberg's description). Forma (1) and (2) together constitute 

 0. tetragona, a o vata, E. Mey. ; forms (3) and (4) together consti- 

 tute G. tetragona, ft linearis, E. Mey. 



Grisebach twice monographed the genus Chironia ; first in 



1839 (Gen. & Sp. Gent, pp. 96-107), again in 1845 (DG. Prodr., ix., 



pp. 39-41). These two accounts must be considered separately 



because there is no allusion in the earlier work to Meyer's paper 



of 1837, while there is internal evidence that it was written 



without knowledge of Drege's specimens or Meyer's conclusions. 

 The later *- ! *'...- J . - -- 



published 



1839, with some emendations and a few reference's to further 

 material. One striking feature in Grisebach's work is the paucity 

 of the specimens which he cites under individual species. In 

 a number of cases we learn, both from internal evidence and from 

 the existence in various collections of specimens authentically 

 named by Grisebach himself, that the citations under habitat are 

 intended to be representative rather than exhaustive. At the 

 same time he has set another pitfall for the unwary by reason of 

 his quoting among these representative specimens plants referred 

 to by other authors which he has intimated, by the omission of 

 the verification symbol, that he did not himself examine. This 

 involves the necessity, perhaps not always taken into account, 

 tor a closer study of Grisebach's ipsissima verba than is essential 

 m the case of authors who adduce large suites of specimens in 

 evidence of the characters and the validity of their species. 

 Irrisenacii s descriptions, however, have been drafted with much 

 care, and m no case are we left in doubt as to the particular form 

 intended even when the specimens cited are not all in accord 

 with each other and with the diagnoses. 



Chironia frutescens, Griseb. (1839), is G. frutescens, Linn., sub- 



1V l C io* -1 ^ e fashion adopted by Chamisso and Schlechtendal 

 in iwb, with, however, the recognition of an additional variety 

 y orthostylis and the alteration of the name ft glabra, Cham. 

 & Schlecht to ft angustifolia. The variety orthostylis, based on 

 V. orthostylis, Reichb., is only a sport under cultivation of typical 

 C. frutescens and cannot be sustained. But the variety ft anqusti- 

 Jolta Griseb corresponds more precisely with the limits of 



to be preferred. 

 Chironia Kr* 



, s „ i folia 



nam. & So.hWhf . d^c^v 



adS'hv of iCaUli% Gr \lt- < 1839 )' is treated after th * fashion 

 tioml JZ£ SS ° m 183 i' With the recognition of an addi- 

 mtdira ,/£' y f m J m f ne ?' Grisebach's typical G. nudicaulis is 

 Linn f ^' \ tabula ™> Cham., and is therefore G. nudicaulis, 

 8TonaafaC\iT m t l - d ^. 8 **■*"*). But G. nudicaulis 

 Flftsandt C T>1 ^^"^d on specimens from the Cape 

 less comtehen v,1? a ' n*™^ 175 ^ J"*™noides, Linn.), was 

 Grisebach tlTElSK °' ?»*—** & ^ngata, Griseb., because • 



f^rm oftrue r w! * ecl \ al ° ng , ? ith Ecklon ' 8 *• 175, both the 

 rm ot true G.jastninoule* with broader leaves and another form 



