334 MR. J. MIERS ON THE HIPPOCRATEACEJE OF SOUTH AMERICA. 
1. HIPPOCRATEA VOLUBILIS, Linn. Sp. Pl. 1*edit. (1753), ii. Append. p. 1191; Willd. 
Sp. Pl. i. 193: Hippocratea ovata, Griseb. in parte (non Lam.), Fl. Br. W. Ind. 148: 
ramis volubilibus, sub-4-angulatis, cinereis, subgranulato-striatis; ramulis teneris, 
minute granulatis, in axillis dilatatis; foliis ellipticis, imo acutis, apicem versus 
sensim angustioribus, obtusis vel rotundioribus, obsolete serratis, dentibus obtusis, 
submembranaceis, viridibus, nervis tenuissimis arcuatis fere immersis, subtus brun- 
nescentibus, opacis, sub lente minute rugulosis, nervis costaque prominulis; petiolo 
tenuissimo, canaliculato, fusco, ruguloso-striato, limbo 8-plo breviore: paniculis 
axillaribus, folio brevioribus, longiuscule pedunculatis, laxe repetitim dichotome 
ramosis, cum ramulis brevibus 1-2-floris in dichotomiis, pallide vel rufo-pruinosis ; 
bracteolis acutis, divaricatis: petalis lanceolato-oblongis, utrinque rufo-pruinosis, 
intus barbellatis; disco conico, crasso, rubiginoso-tomentoso; filamentis late com- 
planatis, extus puberulis; stylo longe exserto: capsulis 3, segregatim divaricatis, 
oblongis, utrinque subrotundatis, valde compressis, striato-nervosis, 4-spermis ; 
seminibus imo longe alatis, a funiculis totidem coriaceo-squamiformibus articulatim 
recisis.—In America Meridionali et in Antillis: v. s. in herb. Mus. Brit., S" Lucia 
(Anderson), in fructu; in hb. Hook., Trinidad (Purdie, 74), in flore; S* Lucia (.4n- 
derson); Nova Granada, in valle Cauca (Triana); Cartagena ( Watts), in flore et 
fructu. 
As three or more very distinct plants have been referred to the species described by 
Linnæus in extremely brief terms, it is important to ascertain which of these he had in 
view when he described it. The first mention of it will be found in the 1st edition of his 
Sp. Plant. Suppl. p. 1191 (1753), where he defines it in seven words, referring to it, at 
the same time, as synonyms, two very different species, both alluded to by Plumier in 
his * Genera,’ p. 8, tab. 75, under Coa scandens A et B, but which were not described until 
two years afterwards (1755) by Burmann, who figured them, Linnzus having previously 
(1737) merely alluded to these in his Hort. Cliff. Suppl. 908. It is evident, therefore, 
that Linnæus, in citing the two synonyms above mentioned, merely copied them from 
the ‘Genera’ of Plumier (1703), without the smallest knowledge of those plants or of 
the details concerning them afforded by Burmann in 1755.  Linnzeus, in the 2nd edition of 
his * Species ' (1762), p. 53, recites his Hippocratea volubilis with other synonyms, referring 
it, 1°, to his own previous character; 2°, to Hippocratea, in Hort. Cliff. Z. c. (no species) ; 
3^, to Hippocratea scandens, a very different plant, first merely mentioned by Jacquin 
in his Enum. p. 12 (1760), but more fully described and figured by him in his Stirp. 
Amer. p. 9, tab. 9 (1763), and which is still another very different plant ; 4°, to Plumier’s 
two plants, described under Coa scandens; and 5^, to Bejuco pendulus of Loefling, 
Itin. p. 314 (1758), which, from his full details, is evidently referrible to Jacquin's species. 
Linnæus, again, in the 3rd edit. Sp. Pl. (1764), as well as in his Syst. Nat. (1767), which 
is equivalent to his last or 19th edition of the Sp. Pl., omits all his former synonyms, and 
adheres only to Jacquin's figured species. But Jacquin, on the other hand, in the small 
edition of his Stirp. Amer. p. 11 (1788), states that when he originally employed his 
specific name (scandens), he had not adopted that of Linnzus (volubilis) because his 
was a scandent, not a twining plant; and thus, considering it a distinet species, he no 
