15 



ohl^M* 5**tt7* tt iS evident that both descriptions contain 

 characters of at least two very different plants. Cav. Diss., ». 158 



a^JMRTS^-iifif^J? the 8 ^ cies ***** ^Hooker 



'nodandi 



and ^described by Miquel in 1852 under the name Tricuspid* ria 

 tan^lata. Hooker and Arnott have been followed by Kuntze 



(1891) 



o ^'i ^tol^ the 0ther hand > follow ed by K. Schumann (18901 an. I 

 Keicne (18116), identified Cavanilles's figure with Triciunidaria 



dmendms, Ruiz et Pav., and gave to Crinodendron Pafagwt 



llook. et Arn., the new name Crinodendron Booker i<t num. 

 Unfortunately, Gay did not state on what grounds he based his 

 reversal of Hooker and Arnott's identification; whether, in fact, 

 he had seen type specimens of Molina or Cavanilles, or not. 



Compa 



tr --— "o* "-"-I «"" "*- i«v uwbii^tiunn given U) ill.' HI II. I 



and Cavanilles, with T. dependens and T. fanceakUa, yields the 

 following points in favour of the identity of Crinodmdmn 



Pataaua. Molina, with T. lancpnlatn. • — 1 Iahvpa liinrpnlafo a/»n^ . 



buds more nearly 



li leaves lanceolate, acute ; 



m i . lanceolata ; 3, petals shown as apparently entire [in 7*. 



lanceolata the petals are much less obviously trifid than in 

 T 7 . dependens']. 



The only point in favour of (7. Patagua, Molina, being con- 

 specific with T. dependens, Ruiz et Pav., is the native name, viz., 

 Patagua*, which is the same in both. 



Both Molina and Cavanilles describe the stamens of Crinoden- 

 dron Patagua as 10 in number, and monadelphous, and this pan 

 of their descriptions together with the great diameter of the trunk 

 (7 ft.) point to a tree of another family having been confused with 

 T. lanceolata by Molina. Fig. B of Cavanilles shows the 10 

 monadelphous stamens, and is, therefore, also to be excluded. 

 Figs. C, D, E may conceivably have been drawn from a fruit of 

 Tricuspidaria, but if so the reproduction is wretchedly inaccurate. 



In conclusion, it may be well to give our reasons for adopting 

 the name Tricuspidaria instead of Crinodendron, and the com- 

 bination T. lanceolata in preference to any of its synonyms. 



1. The genus Crinodendron, Molina, was based (in 1782) on a 

 mixture of at least two species, belonging to different families. 



2. It remained of doubtful position until re-described in 1833 

 and referred to the Elaeocarpeae by Hooker and Arnott. In the 



meantime 



Monadelphia Docandria, i 

 ens-. Sysfc. vol. iii. (1856) 



Syst. (IWI), p. 1026, and Sp 

 transferred to Linozosteae, in S 



Euphorbiaceae, in Agardh Apl 

 placed in Samydeac in Keichb, 



Tricusjddnria, on the other hand, was accurately described and 

 figured in 1794, an I placed in Dodxandria Uonojynta ,- ■ 



* According to Gay, PL Chil., voL it, p. 3<J3, the name Patagua is also applied 

 (in Valdivia) to Eugenia plan* pes, Hook, et Arn. 



more 



