PABVIFLORA. 



ank 



2r,7 



a plant that is only a variety of G. parviflorum, while he has described as G «am«» 



it species and G. nrinitnm uebcnoea as h. parcflorum a mixture 



of that species and G. crinitum. 



of London-the necessary reduction has been E ffected. There, how'ver. in, I „, ^T,^ 



in place of G. multtfyrum 



been again merged in G. j^™, ^ c . ^^ w - ^ « *• "-J*™ 



lined G. muUiAorum Bentlv. n «««,« *l,«f .u*~. < 100- . . ' <"•*,! (1828) ha 



been named G. multiftorum Denth 



™ „ „. ,„„„,,„„„,„ ^u"», a name mat dates from 1 15; and the name " tf -, V •., , 



been restricted to n. 2158/C and the part of n. 2108/2 that is the same « 7L ^T T • " 

 in fact, that do not belong to Q. pm^orum at all. The species to whirl, the* do belong <>**' 

 gatherings are undoubtedly conspeeific with n. 2LVJ/2-is thus provided with two namsT G 

 Jiorum and Gcrin^n. This result is masked, so far as the Type- Herbarium is ZZJ ' wZ 

 manner m which the specimens have been there glued down, for n. 21 8/C. the transfsr of wl 1 

 G. partiflorum may be said to have given rise to the confusion, occurs on sheet 1, v die „ <>, 

 occupies sheet 4. This being the case, and further because true G. forum has b 



familiarly known as G. muUiflorum, it almost seems advisable to allow the names iudi 



•SOWS mom 



5 to stand. But the practical objections are insuperable. For first, there is no '« '? ^Tl* 



liU rvoiu lor boil] 



iflorum," as understood in the Linn. Soc. Herbarium, and G. crinitum. A 



g»m, since th 



Linn. Soc. " G. partiflorum " is based on 2158/C^ wliich only received the name G. pmri/torum 



1829, it is the name G. crinitum (which in any case dates from 1828) that must stand. Th 



hi 



ig 



so, the suppression of the Wallichian name G. paniflorum in favour of Bent ham's name G m/t, 

 Jiorum has nothing left to justify it. For even in 182S WtlUoh'l G. pamflorum obtained tw' 

 gatherings of that species as against one gathering that should have been excluded, and e n aft, 

 his readjustment of 1829 contained five gatherings of the species against only two of anothsr. \nd 

 further, though it is true that all the specimens named G. mult, jiorum in the Linn. Soc. llerbariun 

 are conspecific, we know that Mr. Bentham himself in the two woiks in which he dsse bed (i multt. 

 Jiorum only applied the name to one variety of that Ipecies. Sir Joseph J looker in blor. Brit h,<l 

 (1885) is thus amply justified in suppressing Beutham's name G. mult<Horum. And as his treat 



i\ 



Table XIII 



Wallich's arrangement of 1829 and E ntham's of 1831, thus 



remov- 



ing all the confusion subsequent to these dates, it is only necessary fuither to eliminate from G 

 partiflorum those gatherings of G. crinitum that were unfortunately included in it by Wallieh and 

 restore them to the latter species. 



Specimens from Java (G. dichotomum Zoll. et Mor.) have unfortunately not been available for study 



But the position of the Java p'.ant hardly admits of a doubt. The orig 



of tlie species 



by its authors is quite satisfactory, and (unconsciously) lays emphasis on the oorolline cban. ;rs ths 



indicate its position in § Stexostoma " tubo corollino miJUi/ormi Jauccm versus tandrnm 1 [tauium] diUitatn 

 " (nee ut in reliquis Gomphostemmutis wpra medium iiflato)." Bentham, writing of autlieiitie specimens 

 in Herb. DC, says " talde affine Gr. parvifloro; calycis denies minu* acuminati," while Miquel goes 

 further " calycis dentibus minus acuminatis Gr. parvifloro dffert cui Jot m mmis affine. * That im to 

 say, according to both Bentham and Mi quel, G. dichotomum only differs from Q. partiflorum in 



having less acuminate calyx teeth. Neither Bentham nor Miquel state precisely whether the calyx 

 teeth are or are not shorter than the calyx tube, but the original description *ays " caluctbut 5-fldvt, :> 

 which implies, unless the term is loosely applied, that the teeth are shorter than the tube is. Both 



Bentham and Miquel, however, mention a character omitted by Zollinger and Moritzi " bractm 

 calyces atquantibw." This makes it differ both from G. parcflorum and G. crinitum, but only to 

 the extent of almost assuring one that G. parvflorum and G. crinitum are not specifically separable 

 and that in G. dichotomum exists the intermediate form necessary to support the formal union of 



1 It should be noted that Walpers (Bepert. vi, 684) corrects this misprint into ■ tandem. " But this alter 



elabora 



ation altogether annuls the force of the parenthetic remark which follows. And Miquel, who did 



the genus-the Eepertorium is, as its came implies, only a compilatory work-recognises the true meaning o 



the sentence and makes (Flor. Ind. Bat. u, 986) the obviously correct alteration. 





