68 EETTHEA. 



poses Polamsia as a genus, without alluding to his earlier 

 Jacksonia, evidently not as I surmised on account of discov- 

 ering his error, but apparently in forgetfulness of his publi- 

 cation of Jacksonia. At the place cited he gives an extended 

 diagnosis of Polanisia and remarks "The type of this genus is 

 the Cleome dodecandra of Linnaeus, under which denomination 

 many species were blended." Following this comes a char- 

 acterization of Polanisia graveolens, which he remarks " is 

 the Cleome dodecandra of Michaux and Pursh." 



Polanisia can then be maintained for the North American 

 genus by the exclusion of the species named as the type, but 

 Jacksonia not at all , for it is based on a true Cleome. 



N. L. Bkitton, 

 Columbia College, New York. 



Jacksonia, but not Polanisia. 



My 



is, that Kafinesque in 1808 either published the genus, or he 

 did not. The fuller expression made in 1819 may or may 

 not all have been in his mind in 1808; and we must take, 

 or we must reject as insufficiently published, the Jack- 

 sonia by its own date. It is not, as in the case of Hicoria, 

 a question of misprint; it is a question of what plant is the 

 type of Jacksonia. Eafinesque's thrice repeated assertion 

 that his type of Jacksonia is a plant of the United States 

 that he has seen and examined, Dr. Britton does not appear 

 yet to have read. Or, if he has read it, how can he contra- 

 dict it all by saying, that the genus was founded " distinctly 

 and definitely upon the Indian plant?" 



That Polamsia has the Indian plant for its type is clear 

 enough; but this is of 1819, and does not closely touch, or 

 even at all affect the question of Jacksonia. But since this 

 type species of Polanisia is a true Cleome, how can Polari- 

 isia in any case be retained for the American plants? I did 

 not know that Dr. Britton had receded to the old practice of 

 retaining a generic name in use, after its type has been re- 

 manded. — Edw. L. Greene. 



