378 
by Thunberg in 1794. We have in reality hardly more difficulty 
when deciding as to the name C. polygonoides, Linn. (Sp. Pl. ed. 2, 
1475), for of the two plants included by Linnaeus in the species, it is 
the one with revolute leaf-margins which alone agrees with the 
figure by Burmann that Linnaeus cites. As regards C, pulchella, 
Linn. (Sp. Pl. 1042), no difficulty as regards identification arises, 
and the provenance “ India” erroneously attributed to one of the two 
specimens, is doubtless the result of the receipt, from some correspon- 
dent, of specimens collected partly in South Eastern Asia, partly m 
outh Africa, where the recollection of the donor as to the locality 
of some of his specimens had become obscured. The only serious 
difficulty is that connected with C. Alaternoides, Linn. (Sp. Pl 
1042). Here, as we have seen, Linnaeus at the outset included 
three very different plants, though at the time of his first publica- 
tion of the species he only had a specimen of that which we have 
jndicated as C. Alaternoides, a (Burm. Rar. Afr. 116, t. 43, fig. 1). 
As regards the one which we have indicated as C. Alaternotdes, b 
(Burm. lc. 118, t. 43, fig. 3), we have seen that, as soon as he had 
at his disposal an actual specimen, Linneaus removed the plant 
from C. alaternoides and made it the basis of a new species. As 
obtaining actual specimens, Linnaeus removed the plant from 
C. Alaternoides ; we can, however, say that though he did obtain 
from Thunberg—it did not occur to him to add the plant, when 
ence between ‘hunberg 
* This specimen is, moreover, conspecific with the Cliffortian plant referred by 
Linnaeus to C. Alaternoides. 
