10 INTRODUCTION. 
$3. The validity of the generic name Dalbergia. 
Before proceeding to give a formal definition of the genus, it is necessary to 
bestow a little consideration on the name that. it ought to bear. Leaving out of 
account the names Endespermum Bl. (1823),* Scmeionotis Schott (1829), Miscolobium Vog, 
(1887) Tripiolemea Mart. (1837),8 Let lobium Benth. (1838)| and Podtopetalum Hochst. 
(1841),4] which have been applied to species of Dalbergia, and neglecting the terms 
Drakensteinia Neck. (1790)** and Hecastophyllum Н. B. & К. (1834)11 proposed for 
Ecastaphyllum, since the Supplementum Plantarum was issued in 1781, we have several 
other names with priority as to date over the name Dalbergia that call for considera- 
tion, In the Inder Kewensis and in the Бегім» Generum Plantarum of Kuntze—works 
that have been prepared with very great care—two such names, both dating from 1763, 
are by some oversight cited under Dalbergia. These are Salken Adans. and Solori 
Adans. ;¢¢ the plants on which these genera are founded being respectively Derris 
scandens and Derris uliginosa, the names do not further trouble us. There аге, 
however, several others that must be considered. Taken in inverse chronological 
sequence, we find Acouroa Aubl. (1775); §§ Péter: carpus Berg. (1769) ||) and Lcastaphy!lum 
Р. Вг. (1756) 414 applied to species with nummular pods, and Amerinnon Р. Вт, (1756)*** 
applied to species with samaroid pods. 
As regards the name Acouroa, the fact that it applies only to a species with num- 
mular pods appears to the writer to exclude it from further consideration. If the species 
characterised by pods of this kind are to be artificially separated as constituting a 
distinct genus, the earlier name Ecastaphyllum would be with propriety adopted to desig- 
nate them, With the name Pterocarpus matters are different, since wo have seen that 
though Bergius appears to have confined its incidence to species with nummular pods, 
Poiret at least employed it to designate both species with nummular and species with 
samaroid pods. However, the name is not available for the genus Dalbergia because 
in 1747 it was used by Linnæus to designate a species of Derris, and in 1763 it was 
again used to designate a species of the genus usually recognised as Pterocarpus. 
Kuntze, insisting on absolute priority, uses the name for the genus here spoken of as 
Derris; others, with whom the writer agrees, prefer to employ the name Pérocarpus, 
as Linnæus did in 1763, when he had perfected his system of nomenclature, rather 
than to use it as Linnszus did in 1747, when that system had not yet been matured. 
In any case we are left free to consider, without reference to Bergius name, the remain- 
ing two names proposed by P. Browne in 1750. 
The point that has first to be clearly appreciated is that there was no confusion 
of ideas on the part of P. Browne: he used the name Scastaphyllum for а species 
with nummular pods, the name Amerimnon for a species with samaroid pods. So long as 
the two groups of species thus indicated were kept apart, it is clear that for the 
genus with nummular fruits the proper name was Lcastaphyllum; for the genus with 
——— . 
* Cat, беш. Buitenzorg, 23, tt Nov. Gen. $ Spec. vi. 387. 
t Wiener Zeitschr, iii, 804, It Fam. РІ. ii. 322, 327. 
Í Linnea xi. 200. 55 Pl. Guian, 763, t. 301. 
8 Flora xx. Beibl. 122. ||| Vet. Acad. Handl. Stockh. 116. | 
[| Anu, Wiener Mus. ii, 94, 44 Hist. Jamaic. 299, 
§ Flora xxiv. 657, *** Hist. Jamat. 288. 
+» Elem. iii. 33. 
