Mr. J. Miers on some of the Heliotropiese. 191 



rejection of the barbarous Argyope^ which has obtained cur- 

 rency with Lucas, Walckenaer and others. Latreille* has 

 changed it (on what grounds I know not) to Argyopes^ making 

 it a masculine ; and he is followed by Sundevall, Koch, Key- 

 «erling, and others. It is desirable that the genus should 

 henceforth resume its original and correct name — Argiope^ 

 Sav. & Aud. 



XIX. — Observations on some of the Heliotropieae. 

 By John Miees, F.R.S., F.L.S., &c. 



[Concluded from p. 133.] 



Messekschmidtia. 



The late Mr. Robert Brown (in 1810) pointed out the neces- 

 sity of constituting a distinct genus for those species of Tourne- 

 fortia which differed from all the others in having the border 

 of the corolla cleft into subulate lobes, a baccate fruit contain- 

 ing four nucules (each unilocular and monospermous), the seed 

 with a very curved embryo and a superior radicle (Prodr. 

 p. 496); but he omitted giving a name to the genus. In 1819 

 Homer and Schultes adopted this view, calling the genus 

 Messerschmidtiaj a name previously given by Linnaeus to 

 those species of Tournefortia which have a fruit with two 

 nucules, each 2-celled. As such characters, according to their 

 showing, belonged to Tournefortia proper, the Messerschmidtia 

 of Linnseus naturally fell to the ground. Adopting it, there- 

 fore, for the group in question, they enumerated eleven species, 

 all natives of the New World, mostly climbing or subscandent 

 plants ; but it is strange that among these there appears only 

 one species that answers to the essential characters of their 

 own generic diagnosis. G. Don (1837), following the same 

 train, amplified the species to twenty-four, in total disregard 

 of the distinguishing features of Messerschmidtia^ associating 

 with them several belonging to Heliophytum. Endlicher (1838) 

 acknowledged the genus, and gave it a tolerably correct dia- 

 gnosis, though with some few errors. By some authors the 

 name has been applied to other very different groups, selected 

 from Tournefortia] and this has caused no little confusion. 

 DeCandolle, in his elaboration of the Borraginece (in 1845), 

 quite ignored Messerschmidtia as a genus, admitting neither 

 that of Linnaeus nor of Homer and Schultes ; but he retained 

 this name, as a section, for a small number of species of Tour- 

 nefortia possessing very different characters (Prodr. ix. 528). 



* Cuyier's Regne Animal, nouv. 6d. iv. p. 70 (1829). 



14* 



