379 
difficulty Pena with the action which the facts of the case 
impose upon us is that we are compelled to exclude from C. Alater- 
notdes the panties species from which Linnaeus borrowed an old 
generic name in order to employ it as a specific epithet. In con- 
nection with this, it is to be remarked that, owing to an uncorrected 
typographical error on the part of Linnaeus, the real significance 
of the specific term has been overlooked in most of the works dealing 
with the genus except Persoon’s Synopsis and the Hortus Kewensis. 
In the first edition of the Hortus Kewensis (1789), the name 
C. Alaternoides was used (vol. iii, 419) for a plant which had been 
in cultivation in England for nearly a pe or eee certainly that 
figured by Burmann (Rar. Afr. 116, p. 43, fig. 1). Here, for the first 
time, Dryander, on Banks’ behalf ‘and in Aiton’s pee proposed 
the orthography Cluytia, now adopted in place of Clut 
THUNBERG in 1794 coum the South Airions.. species of 
Cluytia known to him (Prodr. Pl. Cap. 53); these species were 
more fully described in 1823 in Thunberg’s Flora Capensis as edited 
by Schultes, An rai chang Licpcure that the names used in 
the a do not always have the same incidence in the Flora, 
A 
Thunberg shies that this suspicion, so far as the genus Cluytza is 
concerned, is only justified in the case of C. tomentosa, Thunb:, not 
of 
inn. ; even then, it is justified only in a very qua manner. 
In adilition to the four species recognised by Pe i Thunberg 
in his Prodromus recognised five others. Two of these, C. acuminata 
and C. hirta, do not belong to the genus ; the fi three, C. ericordes, 
a pubescens and C. heterophylla, do. [Besides these there is in 
Thunberg’s herbarium another specimen, which is not accounted 
for in his writings. This he has named tentatively C. retusa ; it 
is, however, quite different from C. retusa, Linn., because it really is 
a Cluytia, which the true C. retusa of Linnaeus is not, he 
species known to or recognised by Thunberg are 
(1.) C. Alaternoides, deg rewigests by five socnuuiens, whereof three 
belong to C. africana, Poir., ich as regards bibliographical 
reference, Linnaeus included in C. Alaternoides and Lamarck in C. 
daphnoides, but which as Teeaee specimens neither author dealt 
with ; of the remaining specimens, one is the same as Tulbagh, 127, 
and is therefore C. rubricaulis var. grandifolia, while the other is C. 
Alaternoides var. brevifolia, a form unknown to Linnaeus. It is 
therefore to be noted that although C. Alaternoides, Thunb., is 
intended to be Commelin’s plant, it really includes three oh 
forms, none of which can be identified with C. Alaternoides, 
(2.) C. pulchella, represented by two sheets, a male. and a Linus. 
both of which are C. pulchella, Linn, 
(3.) C. polygonoides, ere in herb. Thunb. by two specimens, 
a male and a female, both of which belong to the species figured by 
Burmann (Rar. Afr. on t. 42, fig. 3) and therefore to C. polygo- 
noides, Linn. 
(4.) C. tomentosa, represented by two sheets, a male and a female, 
neither of which is C. tomentosa, Linn. The responsibility for this 
identification ibis not, however, rest with shyetarsa but with 
innaeus, for the fernale specimen is a manifest duplicate of the 
sheet in the Linnean herbarium which tantaahe erroneously wrote 
