SPECIES OF THE GENUS MELILOTUS—LAWSON. TSt 
TRIFOLIUM. 
AL. officinalis. 
M. Indica. 
kite. 
I do not know that any reason has been assigned for, or explan- 
ation attempted, of this apparent departure by Linnzus from his 
binominal rule. He may have intended merely to emphasize the 
section as a particularly well-marked one, or, perhaps, was 
unwilling to discard a long established and appropriate term. 
Whether the name Melilotus was intended to be used as a part 
of the trivial name, as indicated by Smith’s mode of citing it— 
(given below)—or as a sub-generic term, which we may fancy is 
intended to be indicated by those who write “ 7. officinale, Linn,” 
does not clearly appear. It is possible that Linnzeus regarded 
this section of Z'rifoliwm as really entitled to generic distinction, 
and, anticipating its future elevation to the status of a genus, 
took this means of presenting to his followers the eminently 
appropriate name ready for use so soon as the distinctions and 
limits of the group should be fully ascertained. However it may 
be explained, this exceptional style of nomenclature created after 
confusion in the citations made by botanists from the Species 
Plantarum, as may be seen by the following instances, in some 
of which the generic name Melilotus is entirely ignored, and 
in others that of T'rifeliwm :— 
“Trifolium Meliletus-oficinalis, Linn.” — Smith’s English 
Flora. 
“T. mel. officinalis, Sp. Pl.”—Lightfoot’s Flora Scotica. 
“T. Melilotus officinalis, L.’—Koch’s Synopsis Flore Ger- 
manice. Loudon’s Hortus Britannicus. 
“T. Melilotus, lu..’—Hooker’s British Flora, 5th edition. 
“T. officinale, Linn.”—Aiton’s Hortus Kewensis, 2nd ed. 
Wight & Arnott’s Prodromus. Hooker’s Brit. Flora, 5th ed. 
Watson’s Bibliographical Index of N. American Plants. 
“M. officinalis, Linn.”—Torrey ®& Gray’s Flora of North 
America. Hooker & Walker-Arnott’s British Flora, 6th edition: 
Hooker’s Studeni’s Flora, 1st edition. 
