50 ERYTHEA. 



But even if the application of the hmomieil Pence daniim 

 graveolens to the Anethiim graveolens of Linnaeus, did not 

 take place until after Watson had employed it for the plant 

 described by him in Bot. King Exp., surely this lat- 

 ter application is untenable. While Bentham & Hooker 

 should not be credited with the authorship of binomials 

 which they never made, the fact of their having transferred 

 Anethum graveolens to Feucedanum^ even if it did not 

 receive a binomial under the latter genus until twenty-two 

 years later, should prevent that specific name being taken up, 

 or maintained if taken up, for any other species of Pence- 

 danum named subsequent to the amalgamation of the genera. 



It is very evident that the combining of genera without 

 re-naming the implicated species, is liable to cause consider- 

 able trouble. 



The nomenclature and synonymy of the two species dealt 

 with above, as far as I know them, are as follows: 



PEUciinANUM GRAVEOLENS (L.), BailloD, Histoire des Plantes, vii, 97 



(1880); not of Watson in Bot. King Esp,, 128(1871). 

 Aneihum graveolens^ L. Sp. PL ed. i, 263 (1753). 

 Musenium tenuifolium, W. J. Hooker, Lond. Joum. Bot. vi. 237 

 (18i7); not of Nntt. in T. & G. Flor. i,642 (1840), [fide Watson, 



BibL Index]. 



Watson 



1887). 



Wats 



not of Baillon. 



Carum Gaiedxeri {Atenia Gairdneri, Hook & Arn.) is a 

 name wrongly attributed to Bentham & Hooker by Brewer & 

 Watson in Bot. Cal i. 259 (187C), and by Watson in Bibl. 

 Index, 1,415 (1878). 



The first description of this plant appears to be that by 



Hooke 



Torrey & Gray, recog- 

 nizing its relation to the unpublished genus Edosmia of 

 Nattall, adopted the latter generic name in their Flora, on 

 account of the inapplicability of the name Atenia; they 

 and not Nuttall as Watson has it— were the real authors of 

 the combination Edosmia Gairdnerl In the Genera Plant- 



