236 
the facts of the case are detailed. This may, I hope, enable 
you to come to a decision as to the course which it is 
desirable to adopt in the use of a name for the South African 
Podocarpus under reference. 
I am, etc., 
D. PRrain, 
: Director. 
Podocarpus Thunbergii (Nomenclature). 
aware of the contradiction, but probably unwilling to give the 
latter a new name. Then in 1842 W. Hooker (in | 
so is clear from his synonymy (P. latifolia, Br. in Horsf. Pl. 
: R r, 4 Wall.) which contains no reference to R. 
Brown’s earlier publication quoted above. There is little doubt 
that neither Wallich nor Sir W. Hooker would have named the 
Coy 
2 
4 
o> 
iS 
= 
=] 
° 
=} 
P. latifolia, Wall. For that reason it might seem desirable to 
retain them, but there is no generally recognised rule under 
which this could be done, and to return to the earlier names 
will be the more expedient, as it is in agreement with the 
wie of Pilger’s recent monograph of Tazaceae in the 
Pflanzenreich, 
ce AEN . ig - 
I have treated Podocarpus’’ as feminine in this memo 
