381 
(1.9%, vaepyings Hb. Willd. 18592, includes four specimens the 
first of which is not C. alaternoides at all, but is C. pterogona, Miill. 
rg.; the nest is really C. alaternoides, Linn.; the third is a 
form of C.r ubricaulis Kickl. ; the last is, at least in part, C. africana, 
oir 
(2.) C. pulchella, Hb. Willd. 18601, includes two specimens both 
of which belong to  C. Lpactlege Linn. 
what difforent but which are in fact identical. The species they 
represent is not C. polygonoides, Linn., but a distinct plant, C. 
rubricaulis var. grandifola. 
(4.) C. tomentosa, Hb. Willd. 18600, is i 80 by a gi eel 
specimen whic elongs to the original C. tomentosa, Linn 
described, from male material only, in the second Mantissa. 
(5.) C. ericoides, Hb. Willd. 18597, is represented by a single 
specimen which is really C. ie gbeeet Thun 
(6.) C. etre Hb. Willd. 18599, has nothing to do with the 
true C. hia ie Thunb., but is “ihe female portion of C. tomentosa, 
Thunb. n inn. 
(74) 0. ‘daptiantas’. Hb. Willd. 18594, is the plant described by 
Lamarck under this nam 
(8.) C. heterophylla, taken up by Willdenow from Thunberg is 
not gine in Hb, Willd. 
9.) C. polifolia, taken up by Willdenow from Jacquin is not 
a Pepe a in Hb. Willd. 
0.) C. tenuifolia, Hb. ‘Willd. 18598, is a plant first described by 
Willdenow as a new species which, however, it is not possible to 
separate from C. ertcoides as more than a varie 
Euphorbiaceous and the other two are examples of Blachia umbellata. 
In the Willdenow herbarium there are in addition two species 
which for some reason Willdenow did not venture to include in the 
Species Plantarum. It is almost regrettable that he did not because, 
though they are probably only varieties of one species they are 
very distinct varieties, while the species to which they belong is a 
very distinct species. One of the two, Hb. Willd. 18596, is repre- 
C. rubricaulis var. microp ylla 
PorreT in 1810 (Encye. Meth. Suppl. ii. 302) advanced our 
knowledge of Cluytia by recognising as C. africana the plant 
which both Lamarck and Willdenow had confused with C. da aph- 
noides, pene he in turn introduced another confusion by rod Be 
at the unwarranted conclusion that C. daphnoides as neues 
Willdenow is is aides from C. daphnoides as jaletiortbed by mie 
