440 BOTANICAL GAZETTE [DECEMBER 
“ gram-equival, per l.,” that, in chemical equivalent quantities of H,SO, and 
of HCl, there are twice as many H ions in the H,SO, as there are in the HCl. 
Dr. True clearly regarded this as a gram-molecule per liter solution, so my 
reference to this point is not without good ground. 
Since Heald referred to the whole paper of Kahlenberg and True, and 
since several dibasic salts are there” listed “‘gram-molecule per liter,” my 
general reference is abundantly warranted. ¢ 
An illustration will make clear one misconception. Dr. Kahlenberg states 
that gram-molecule and gram-equivalent-solutions of KHSO, are the same. 
I hold they are not. In a gram-equivalent per liter solution of KHSO, there 
is one-half gram of H. Dr. Kahlenberg’s position is that there is ome gram 
of H. If I misinterpret this substance Iam in good company. (See defini- 
tion memes and references to Talbot, Mohr, Sutton, Fresenius, p. 
230. 
As to dissolving substances in so much water or in so much sodution, I 
may say that I am surprised at Dr, Kahlenberg’s defending, 2 amy case, the 
former method. 
y paper was not written as acriticism of Kahlenberg and True, as he 
seems to think, though their work was freely drawn upon for illustration.— 
JAMES B. DANDENO, Normad and fligh School, St. Louis, Mo. 
BASILIMA, SCHIZONOTUS, SORBARIA. 
IN THE July number of the BoTanicaL GAZETTE (32:56) Mr. Alfred 
Rehder discusses these names, reaching the conclusion that Sorbaria is the 
proper designation for the genus in which Spiraea sorbifolia Linn. is now 
placed. His decision in the case of Basi/ima Raf. seems unquestionable, viz., 
that when it first appeared, in 1815, it was a nomen nudum, and when repub- 
lished in 1836 it was a synonym of Séhézonotus Lindl. But why Schzzonotus 
Lindl. should be set aside is not so clear to me. It is said that where it was 
first published, in Wallich’s Catalogue (no. 703; Pritzel says that this portion 
of the Catalogue appeared 1 D 1828), this name was asynonym. The Ca/a- 
logue is cited fully and correctly: “no. 703, Spiraea Lindleyana Wall. 
Schizonotus Lindl. (gen. nov. Spir. sorbifoliam amplectans),” but I fail to see 
how there is any synonymy here; if so, of what is Schizonotus a synonym? 
We have here rather an annotation. Wallich’s Spiraea Lindleyana is said 
to belong to the new genus Schizonotus Lindl., based upon Spiraea sorbifolia. 
Spiraea Lindleyana, like most of the other names of Wallich’s Catalogue, 
when divorced from the specimens which were intended to accompany it, is 
merely a nomen nudum; while Schizonotus, distinctly based upon a well- 
known species, Spiraea sorbifolia, is certainly not a nomen nudum, and can 
scarcely be held a synonym of one! 
7 Bor. Gaz. 22:96. (CuSO 4> etc.) 
——t 
