416 
Coast Region: Clanwilliam, Malmesbury, Tulbagh, Worcester, 
Paarl, Cape, Stellenbosch, Caledon, Swellendam, Riversdale, 
Mossel Bay and (according to Ecklon and Zeyher) also Cathcart 
Cluytia polygonoides is the plant figured by Burmann in 1758 
Pl, Afr. Rar. 48, t. 43, fig. 3) which Linnaeus in 1753 
included in C, Alaternoides, but to which, in 1763, he accorded 
the status of a distinct species, while at the same time 
leaving it also in its old place. It is the C. polygonoides 
of the younger Burmann, of Lamarck and of Thunberg, but, 
as the outcome of a misapprehension, is not the C. polygonoides 
of Willdenow, whose plant (herb. Willd. n. 18593) is what we have 
here described as C. rubricaulis, Eickl., y grandifolia, Krauss. This 
misinterpretation by Willdenow had been adopted by Poiret, Aiton, 
Sonder, Krauss and Baillon and was not cleared away until 1866 
when Miiller once more placed the species on a sound footing. 
Linnaeus not only left the plant in two places (Sp. Pl. ed. 2, 1475), 
his herbarium shows that he included under the name two species, 
one sheet written up by him as C. polyyonoides being C. ericoides. 
The specimens of Drige issued by E. Meyer show the converse 
confusion, both C. polygonoides and C, ericoides having been distri- 
buted in 1843 under the latter name. Two years later Krauss 
repeated this error but in a modified fashion, for he treated these 
C, Ft ey belonged by right to the plant figured as such by 
Willdenow. There is some reason to suppose that the name C. cur- 
has found the plant in a locality so far to the east, and this 
record should be treated, until further evidence is available, as a 
rather doubtful one. 
