8 
Eekloni (p. 849); 139, glabrata (p. 857), and 156, decumbens 
(p. 864). In addition to the foregoing, five of the species described 
by Miiller in 1866, which were not at that time known to occur 
south of the Tropic, have since that date been gathered in South 
Africa, These are :—85, ornata (p. 833); 115, senensis (p. 845), 
from which 114, zambesica, is not distinguishable ; 165, indica 
(p. 868); 175, ciliata (p. 873), and 183, segetalis (p. 877). 
No remark is called for in the case of any of these five species, 
nor is any remark called for in the case of 10, Sonderiana, Mull. Arg. 
- (1865), which is A. petiolaris, Sond. (1850), not of Hochst. (1845), 
and is a valid species. 
Little remark is required in the case of 139, glabrata, Thunb. 
(1800), which is the plant described in Schultes’ edition of Thunb- 
berg’s Flora Capensis (1823), and on this account is a valid species 
notwithstanding the fact that it is not based on the specimen cited 
in that work, and is not the plant named A. glabrata in Thunberg’s 
own herbarium. In his acceptance of the variety latifolia, Miiller 
has merely followed Sonder, Another valid species is 156, decum- 
bens, Thunb. (1800), now A. capensis, which is identical with A. dis- 
color, EK. Mey. ex Meisn. (1845), and includes Urtica capensis, Linn. 
{. (1781), Tragia villosa, Thunb. (1794), A. cordata, unb. 
(1800), A. Kraussiana, Buching. (1845), A. lamiifolia, Scheele 
ae 
oe 
name A. Eckloni, though the accident of a misconception, shall be 
used for Meyer’s plant. : 
Another quite valid species is 118, petiolaris, Hochst. (1845), the 
name used for which similarly supplants the name A. languida 
sige by Meyer two years earlier. In this instance, however, 
tiller has made an effort to maintain A. languida, E. Mey., as 
a species. His justification for this is the belief that a specimen 
in Herb. Berlin, which Meyer has written up as A. languida, 
differs specifically from the other specimens so named, and there- 
fore from A. petiolaris, Hochst. This view cannot be sustained. 
There is no specimen in Herb. Berlin named A. languida by Meyer 
which differs in any important feature from A. petiolaris, Hochst. 
Therefore 119, languida, Miill. Arg. (1865) is not a valid species. 
lhe same remark is called for in the case of 120, tenuis, Miill. Arg. 
(1865), to which Miiller has attributed two varieties which do not 
differ from each or from 4. petiolaris, Hochst., by any tangible 
character. | 
In the case of 117, Zeyheri, Miiller has deviated very con- 
siderably from the treatment accorded to that species by Baillon 
when he founded it in 1863. Baillon’s original types were Zeyher, | 
Es, “s 
