9 



64 



there is in Herb. Kew another sheet of G. melampyrifolia which 

 Grisebach has himself named C.jasminoides ; however, in this case, 

 he has added the note : — "these specimens approach to G . perfoliata, 

 Eckl." In one or two cases also, in various collections, Grisebach 

 has, in spite of the caution he himself enjoined, attached the name 

 G. jasminoides to specimens of G. tetragona, var. linearis. But 

 Grisebach has explained that his G . jasminoides is nearly allied to 

 G. tetragona, and Knoblauch has even suggested (Bot. CentralbL, 

 lx., p. 328) that the two may be but forms of one species. 



The majority of the specimens named G. jasminoides by Grise- 

 bach belong, however, to a plant with which his description does 

 agree in every respect. This plant is one that was collected by 

 Ecklon in various localities in the Caledon Div., and that consti- 

 tutes part of G. jasminoides, Cham., but not of Linn, nor of 

 Thunb. ; it is a form or variety of G. tahularis, Page. 



In addition to his typical G. jasminoides (C tabularis, var. 

 confusa), Grisebach has recognised a variety, /3 lychnoides, so 

 named because he believed it to be G. lychnoides, Linn., not of 

 Berg. The plant intended was collected by Ecklon on the Cape 

 Flats and constitutes the remaining part of G. jasminoides, Cham., 

 but not of Linn, nor of Thunb. Grisebach has, as he did under 

 the type, quoted a gathering by Thunberg as representing his var. 

 lychnoides ; he also has mentioned a plant with much longer 

 calyx-lobes as being another form of his var. lychnoides. Thun- 

 berg's plant in question came from Mount Hottentots Holland and 

 is G. linoides, Linn. The plant with long calyx-lobes which Grise- 

 bach has himself named C.jasminoides, var. li/chnoides, came from 

 near Cape Town, and is G. maritima, Eckl., not of Willd. 

 Thunberg's plant, however, we may exclude from consideration, 

 for Grisebach never saw it ; the specimen of C. maritima may 

 also be neglected, for Grisebach has admitted that it does not quite 

 agree with the plant he intended. The plant Grisebach had in 

 view is a variety of his own G. scabrida, and is as widely different 



from G. lychnoides, Linn., as it is from the original G. lych- 

 noides, Berg. 



We find then, when all the circumstances are taken into account, 

 that C.jasminoides, Griseb., cannot be C. jasminoides, Linn. We find 

 further that C. jasminoides, Griseb., was not intended to coincide 

 with C.jasminoides, Thunb., and that the coincidence is accidental. 

 1 inally, we find that in the case of G. jasminoides, as in the cases of 

 0. frutescens and C. nudicaulis, Grisebach was attempting to adopt 

 the species as defined by Chamisso ; since C.jasminoides, Griseb., as 

 a whole, is in intention and very nearly in fact the combination of 

 lorms that composes C. jasminoides, Cham., not of Linn, and not 

 ot 1 hunb. In this instance, however, Grisebach observed that 

 Lhamisso had confused two distinct forms under C. jasminoides. 

 Iherefore C jasminoides, Griseb., proper, is equivalent to C. jas- 

 minoides, Cham., so far only as the specimens from Caledon are 

 concerned; while C.jasminoides, Cham., so far as the specimens 



irom the Cape District are concerned, has become C. jasminoides, 

 (5 lychnoides, Griseb. J 



fv? a iwK V i Mn W (ma > Griseo - (1839), is C. tetragona, Linn. f. 

 Grisebach has proposed a variety, breviJbUa, which is based on 



