6 
valid and the only modification that is sauteed § in his view consists 
of the inclusion of the proposed variety within the t 
Sonder’s third species is A. glandulifolia, Buching., high we have 
already seen to be a valid species. Here again onder has suggested 
the recognition of two distinct forms ; “the advent of additional 
material indicates that this differentiation is not reqnired. 
The fourth species enumerated by Sonder is the one first issued 
Drége in 1843 as A. languida, E. Mey., but first described 
by Hochstetter in 1845 a s A, petiolaris. In giving preference to 
the synonym which, though ‘the older, is peer a naked name, Sonder 
acted unfortunate 
The fifth species is that which Sonder has termed A. betulina, 
Retz. The species is now for the first time dealt with intelligibly 
and the true relationship ef the two allied forms, whose existence 
had already been ee by E. Meyer and by Ecklon and Zeyher, 
is more clearly defined. But the name employed is unfortunate ; 
the species is not A. betulina, Retz, but is A. glabrata, Thunb. 
Fuller knowledge, moreover, indicates that there is no real necessity 
for the recognition of var. latifolia as apart from the type. 
The sixth species, in spite of the doubt to which Sonder testifies, 
is really an Acalypha and is, as Sonder indicates, a distinct and vali 
species. But the use, in designating this new species, of the epithet 
which Sonder was aware Hochstetter had already applied to another 
Acalypha is singularly unfortunate. Our present conventions, which 
render incumbent the use of the name “A. petiolaris”’ in connection 
with the plant described as such by Hochstetter in 1845, prevent us 
from employing it to designate the plant so described by Sonder in 
1850. 
In Linnaea, vol. xxv. (1852), at p. 587, Scheele based on Drege, 
8242, a species of Acalypha from South Africa, A, lamiifolia, Scheele. 
, h er, identica 
Ten years later Baillot published in Aakiaie vol, ii. (1862), 
pp. 156-158 a resume of the South African species of Acalypha, 
based partly on specimens, partly on the literature which has been 
passed under review 
1. Acalypha peduncularis, Baill. is identical with A. peduncularis, 
E. Mey., the specimens of Masson and of Zeyher 3838 which are 
cited agreeing precisely with those of Drége on which the species 
was based. Baillon, however, had no opportunity of seeing any 
D pate of Krauss 377 and his erroneous reduction of A. crassa, 
uching. to A, peduncularis is adopted from Sonder 
2. Acalypha Zeyheri, Baill., based on Zeyher 3839 and on a 
specimen of doubtful provenance bearing the number 301, supplies 
the earliest description of a valid species. 
3. Acalypha caperonioides, Baill., based on Deyher 1521. is again 
a valid species. In this instance "Baillon has failed to to note that 
the same plant is the type of A. peduncularis, Bp glabrata, Sond. 
4, Acalypha angustata, Baill. is Sonder’s ai of this name, 
