363 



collected by Ecklon at Voormansbosch 

 the type of C. nudicaulis, % muUift 



y multiflora). Gnsebaoh's G. nudicaulis, y vimin&a is of especial 

 interest because it represents G. lychnoides, Linn., not of Vers. 



(G. jasminoides, /3 viminea). 



Ghironia peduncular is, Griseb. (1839), is Lindley's species so 

 named. 



Ghironia maritima, Griseb. (1839), is 0. maritime Eckl., 



4/ 



The 



name may be maintained because the original 0. mar Hi ma, W\\h\., 

 happens to be an Erylhraea. 



Ghironia jasminoides, Griseb. (1839), is not 0. jasminoides, 

 Linn., because O. jasminoides, Griseb., according to Grisebach's 

 description, is an undershrub with alternate branches, solitary 

 flowers, and a calyx in which the tube and the lobes are of about 

 equal length ; whereas G. jasminoides, Linn., as described by Lin- 

 uaeus, has a herbaceous stem, has its flowers in terminal erect 

 dichotomous panicles with opposite subulate bracts, and has a 

 5-partite calyx. Not being G. jasminoides, Linn., it might be 

 anticipated that G. jasminoides, Griseb., should prove to be G. 

 jasminoides, Thunb., if not entirely then at least in part. Grisebach 

 has cited, under G. jasminoides, as representative of his species, 

 Thunberg's gathering from the Swellendam Division which was 

 named by Thunberg G. jasminoides, but which is composed of 

 G. melampyrifolia and two forms of G. tetragona. The only 

 specimens, however, that Grisebach has quoted with a mark of 

 affirmation are one collected by Krebs and one in Herb. Will- 

 denow, both of which are G. melampyrifolia. He has, though 

 doubtfully, quoted G. melampyrifolia, Lamk, as a synonym of his 

 G. jasminoides • he has also definitely quoted G. muflora, Lamk, 

 which is a form of G. tetragona, as another synonym of G. jasmin- 

 oides, Griseb. But this evidence, which at first sight seems to 

 show that G. jasminoides, Griseb., must be equivalent to C. jas- 

 minoides, Thunb., does not stand the test of closer scrutiny. In 

 the first place the gathering from Swellendam in Thimberg's 

 Herbarium, which is a mixture of three different things was not 

 actually seen by Grisebach. In the second place the figure of 

 G. uniflora, Lamk, which represents with fidelity the specimen 

 on which Lamarck based his species, is said by Grisebach to be 

 poor. Since it represents adequately the species that it really 

 illustrates, Grisebach's judgment only indicates that it repre- 

 sents badly the plant supposed by Grisebach to be C. jasmmmdes. 

 Further, the two species involved in G. jasminoides, Thunb., 

 are accounted for independently by Grisebach ; G. perforata, 

 Eckl., which Grisebach upholds, is G. melampyrifolia, Lamk ; 

 G. tetragona, var. brevifolia, Griseb., is the actual O. imi/lora, 

 Lamk (O. tetragona, var. linearis, E. Mey). Finally, the 

 description of C. jasminoides, Griseb., does not apply to G. 

 melampyrifolia, Lamk, as regards foliage, while the account ot 

 the calyx of G. jasminoides, Griseb., as Grisebach himself points 

 out, is such as to definitely exclude every form of G. tetragona. 



„ These identifications of specimens of (7. **"«y^j££ 

 0. jasminoides are not the only instances to he met with . 



