380 
up as C. tomentosa, Mant. femina ; for this reason it is desirable to 
treat. the female specimen as the basis of C. tomentosa, Thunb. 
(Prodr. Fl. Cap. 53). The male specimen of C. tomentosa, T hunb., 
not of Linn., is certainly identical with what was described by 
Lamarck as C. daphnoides, the female is, on the other hand, much 
more like the distinct plant collected by Droge, which was issued 
y EK. Meyer in 1843, also as C. tomentosa, but which Sonder in 
1850 treated as a distinct species. Sonder indeed believed the 
female of C. tomentosa, Thunb., to be identical with C. tomentosa, 
- Mey., and, in consequence, named the species C. Thunbergit. 
Miiller, while agreeing with Sonder that C. Thunbergii is distinct, 
at least as a variety, excluded therefrom Thunberg’s female plant 
and treated it as identical with the male part of C. tomentosa, 
Thunb. non Linn.; the description of C. tomentosa, Thunb., in 
Schultes’ edition of the Flora Capensis shows that in 1823 both 
plants were included in the species by Schultes. As to this con- 
clusion Miiller, whom Pax has followed, is hardly justified : 
perhaps the same thing may be said of the treatment by Sonder, 
whom the writer has followed in this paper. A better view than 
either might be to consider C. tomentosa, Thunb., female, as 
peenpetiase between C. daphnoides, Lamk., and C. Thunbergii, 
Sond. x 
(5.) C. ericoides, Thunb., is a good species which Linnaeus was 
unable to distinguish from C. polygonoides; it is represented in 
Thunberg’s herbarium by a single male specimen. 
(6.) €. pubescens, Thunb., is another good species, and 
(7.) C. heterophylla, ‘Thunb., is yet another good species, neither 
of which was known to Linnaeus. 
Prodromus or in the Flora, which Thunberg has written up as 
Clutia retusa? It is not C. retusa, Linn., because it really is a 
Cluytia ; it belongs to the distinct species published by Sonder in 
1850 as C. affinis. 
Jacquin in 1797 (Hort. Schénbrunn. ii., 67, t. 250) described 
and tigured from a plant grown at Vienna a very distinct species, 
C. polifolia, which was not known either to Linnaeus or to 
g. 
Linnaeus, Burmann and Thunberg. The last is C. daphnoides as 
described by Lamarck ; it is one of Multiglandulosae, and therefore 
cannot be the plant figured by Commelin which both Lamarck 
and Willdenow have included in their C. daphnoides. 
__ The identity of the various species enumerated by Willdenow in 
1805 (Sp. Pl. iv. pars. 2) is best arrived at by enumerating the 
specimens in his herbarium under the various species. | 
