I^-esembryanthemum pugioniforme, Linn,, Sp. Pi,, ed. 1, 488, 

 not of other authors, end founded upon M, pugioniforme florea 

 mplo stramineo of Dillenlus, Hort. Slth,^ 280, t. 210, f. 269. 

 M. capitatum, Hav:. , Misc. Nat., 41, and ^yn. Pi. Succ, 228, exclu- 

 ding all synonymy, not M. capitatum of other authors (for which 

 see G, communis) • 



South Africat Localit^r and collector unknown; introduced into 

 cultivation before 1732, 



This species has been long lost to cultivation and so far as I 

 have been able to ascertain is not knovn to South African botanists, 

 who indiscriminately call several other species by this name. Hav/- 

 ort'i began the confusion of names by redescribing the tinnean M, 

 pugioniforme, as a new species under the name of M. capitatum, for 

 his description of and nearly all that he states about that species, 

 nearly accords wdth C. pugioniformis as described and figured by 

 Dillenius that I have no doubt whatever that the tv.-o names belong 

 to one and the same plant. For according to DiHenius i-'^. pugioni- 

 forme lives for six to seven years, and has a stout, erect stem; 

 while Haworth states in a remark under M. pugioniforme, Haw. (not 

 of Linn,), S^-nor. p. 229, that ''u capitatum is quite upright 

 (v/hen not overdrawn hy a hothouse) and lives near eight or nine 

 years in the greenhouse, and its flowers last rather longer on 

 bloom than those of ". pugioniforme," In contradistinction to this 

 he states that his I-. pugioniforme (i.e., ^. capensis, N.E.-^^r.) 

 lives for only tv/o or three yecrs, and is little better than a 

 biennial. 



Other authors, v/ithout investigation of the description given 

 by Di^lenius, have confused other species with this, and have mostly 

 accepted the plant figxired by Salm %ck, i-esemb. 15, f. 4., as 

 being I.I. pugioniforme, but that which in my opinion does not differ 

 from that v/hich he r^igures (f.s) as ^''*, capitctum, except in size, 

 v.'hich I find in seme of these plants varies in accordance v.ith food 

 supply, and both differ from the true M. pu.^ioniforme in having 

 much smaller flowers, vrith the calyx-12)bes longer than the petals, as 

 well as being of shorter duration. 



The description above given is compiled from the description 

 and type specimen of Dnienius, upon which the specieswas founded 

 by Linne. I-'pon the sheet of the type specimen in the -^illenian 

 Herbarium at Oxford is preserved the same mixture of fruit as is 

 represented on the DiHenisn plat above quoted, v/here four capsules 

 are figured and numbered 1-4. Of these only ^^ig, 3 belongs to M. 

 pugioni-^orme; the others belong to other_ genere . Concerning the 

 fruit, "aworth's remark about it (under ^•'^. cepitatum) is a little 

 obscure, for he states? " I dare not cite this figure of Din, 

 Hort. "^Ith., t. 210, for this plant (although nearer to it than the 

 next species), because the capsule there delineeted is very mvich 

 less depressed and not so broad as in this species, whose petals 

 and leni'^'^es are shorter than those given on his plate." By "next 

 srecies" i^aworth refers to his - , pug.ioniforme Vi'hich ^ 0. capensis, 

 N. 15. Br. But from his statement that the fruit of his M. capita- 

 t^^m v;as broader and much more depressed was in some v/ay mistaken, 

 and from what I have observed in cultivated plants L suspect he had 

 only an unfertilised and probably unripe fruit of i-, capitatum 

 before him, for all properly ripened and fully developed fru.its of 

 this genus have the top rising into a very distinct cone, vvhile vihen 

 they ere unfertilised the cone is scarcely evident and does not de- 

 velop, end the rim often reains broader tlian in the ripened fruit. 



