394 
C. floribunda, Baill, Etud. gén. Euphorb. Atl. 30, t. xvi. fig. 1-6 
(1858) ; fide Pax. C. heterophylla, Baill. Adansonia, ili, 150, quoad 
spp. cit. sed syn. Bernh, excl. (1862); nec Thunb. C. Alaternoides, 
y genuina, b oblongata, Mull. Arg. |. c. (1866). 
Coast Region: Clanwilliam Div.; Cedarberge, near the Honey 
Valley and the Koudeberg, 800-1200 m., Drege, 8228 b; Diels, 
906. Piquetberg Div. ; near Piquetberg, Drege, 8228 a: Oliphants 
River near Warm Baths, Stephens, 7223 ; Phillips, 7254. Paarl 
iv.; Paarl Mountain and by the Berg River near Paarl, Drége. 
Cape Div. ; numerous localities, Sparrmann ; Thunberg; Bergzus ; 
Mund § Maire; Lichtenstein; Drege, a; Burchell, 260; Ecklon ; 
Ecklon § Zeyher; Prior; Pappé; Hooker, 616; Harvey, 24, 112; 
C. Wright, 452; Dubuc; Bolus, 4586; Miss Cole; Rehmann, 
1394, 2028; Wolley Dod, 608, 2743 in part, 2799 ; Wilms, 3612 ; 
Diimmer, 27, 97, 1449, 1451. Stellenbosch Div.; Hottentots 
Holland, Mund § Maire. 
In herb. Holm. there is a specimen of this plant marked in an 
unrecognised script “Gueinzius 205” and subsequently noted by 
Sonder as being also from Hottentots Holland. In herb. Berol. 
another specimen is marked “ Eckl. & Zeyh. 49. 93. 3” the locality 
of which, if these figures were correct, should be Port Elizabeth. 
But there is no corroboration of this rather unexpected distribution 
‘and the Port Elizabeth locality should be considered doubtful. 
Cluytia africana was well figured by Commelin (Hort. Amst. 11. 
3, t. 2) in 1701, but was treated by Linnaeus in 1753 and again by 
Lamarck in 1786 as only a form of another species well figured by 
Burmann (Rev. Afr. PI. 116, t. 43, fig. 1) in 1739. Though 
This new error was corrected by Poiret in 1810 (Encyc. Meth. 
Suppl. ii. 302), though Poiret was led into yet a third because of his 
assuming that the C. daphnoides of Willdenow could not well be the 
C. daphnoides of Lamarck. In coming to this conclusion Poiret’s 
own judgment was at fault for the plant figured by Willdenow as 
C. daphnoides is really the plant described under that name by 
Lamarck. Poiret’s action was consistently ignored until 1866, when 
Miiller, failing to observe that Poiret’s error lay in his having 
been misled in his estimate of Willdenow’s judgment, misunderstood 
and misinterpreted Poiret’s proposition. In 1845 Krauss, who does 
not quote Poiret, arrived independently at the same conclusion and 
treated C. africana as distinct from C. Alaternoides ; unfortunately it 
was to U. africana that Krauss attributed the name “ Alaternoides ” 
while the real C. Alaternoides he included in C. polygonoides, Krauss, 
his conception of which was the same as that of Willdenow and there- 
fore altogether different from that of Linnaeus. In applying the 
name C, Alaternoides to this particular plant Krauss was only doing 
what, as we learn from their specimens, Thunberg and E. Meyer 
