371 



Chironia Wihmii, Schoch (1903), is wholly ft Wilmsii, Qilg 

 (C. hum'dis, var. Wilmsii). 



Chironia Baumiana, Schoch (1903), is ft Baumiana, Gila: 

 (1903). fe 



Chironia palustris, Schoch (1903), taken as a whole, is 

 C. palustris, Burch. Schoch has, however, recognised two 

 varieties— (1) C. palustris proper ; (2) var. radicata. As to this 

 Schoch was justified ; he has, however, as in the cases of 

 C. tetragona and of C. linoides, inverted the incidence of the 

 names; C. palustris, var. radicata, Schoch, is true G. palustris, 

 Burch., while the plant which Schoch has termed C. palustris is 

 C. palustris, var. foliata. 



For facility of reference a table of the synonymy of Chironia 

 is appended. Three of the synonyms given are doubtful, viz. : 

 C. cymosa, C. tenuifiora and C. dianthiflora. 



Chironia cymosa, Burm. f., Prodr. PL Cap., p. 5 (1768), is 



Mant 



The 



specimen, given by Stonestreet, on which the drawing was based, 

 is not now in the Plnkenet Herbarium. We can therefore deal 

 only with the drawing. The leaves are shown as penninerved, 

 so that if this character be correct, the plant cannot be a 

 Chironia. But we know that other figures of later date than 

 Plukenet's plate, of Chironia and Orphium, where the venation 

 is palmate, exhibit the same discrepancy ; it may, therefore, be 

 neglected. The facies of the plant represented in the figure is 

 shared by only two species of Chironia from South Africa, viz. : 

 C. (Hippochiron) jasminoides, Linn., and C. (Plocandra) purpur- 

 ascens, Benth. & Hook, f . The drawing lays stress on the presence 

 of subulate bracts, a feature that excludes C. purpurascens, which 

 was, moreover, not known in the seventeenth century. This 

 feature is in keeping with the characters that mark C. jas- 

 minoides. There is, however, another discrepancy in the drawing, 

 as compared with C. jasminoides ; the calyx-lobes in the drawing 

 are considerably shorter than the corolla-tube. C. jasminoides 

 was known about the time that Plukenet's figure was published, 

 for there is a specimen of tvpical C. jasminoides in Sloane s 

 Herbarium, vol. 156, fol. 158, collected by Oldenland, which was 

 accounted for by Ray in 1704 (Suppl. Append., p. 243 ; Pet .. 

 n - 29), as Centaurium capense elatius Pneumonanthen Jotio ; 

 therefore, though the difference between the drawing and the 

 plant compels us to consider C. cymosa, Burm. f., a doubtful 

 synonym, the probability is that C. jasminoides is the species 

 intended. If this be so, the shape of the leaves and the number 

 of the flowers indicate that the particular form intended by tne 

 figure is G. jasminoides y multiflora. 



Chironia tenuifiora, Link ex Steud., NomencL ed. 2, i. p. 352 



1840) is a name that has not been met with on any specimen hi 



be various collections examined. In some collections, however 



Jere are specimens of that form of C. gracilis, Salisb., mwJJ ica 



the calyx-lobes are short and rather wide, which were collected^ 



Ecklon, and were in the first instance named by him ft «£*£"*» 



k«nk. Having discovered his error, Ecklon re-named these specif 



^ens C\ tenuijolia. In his distribution Ecklon has consistently used 



