THE PHANEROGAMS OF THE JUAN FERNANDEZ ISLANDS i do 



The first who collected Centaurodendron was not JOHOW, but BERTERO; 

 still, B. did noc discover it. Under the name of Dendroseris micrantha, Bl i> 



TERO no. 1602! (Herb. Keu ) there is one sheet with pieces of an old inflore- 

 scence of the latter together with a leaf of Centaurodendron. 



JoiIOW discovered this in July, 1S02, and found it again in June, l& 

 judge from a specimen in his herbarium it was also gathered by Sun 

 probably in April, 1895, on tne same occasion when S. found Robinsonia thuri- 

 fera, for it lies together with this under the same name. I rediscovered it in 

 August, 1908, and found the old inflorescence, just as JOHOW did, but there- 

 was no trace of new ones. From this I concluded that it flowers late in the 

 summer or even in the autumn, and I expected to get flowers this time, but 

 was cruelly deceived. For all I could do was to state that in certain years 

 not a single specimen produces flowers, and that the year 1916 — 17 was one 

 of them. 



Area of distribution: Kndemic in Masatierra; monotypic. 



Dendroseris D. Don. 



The type of the genus is D. macrophylla D. Don, Phil. Mag. XI (1832)388, 

 collected in Masafuera by CUMING (Herb. Kew!). One year later DECAISNE, 

 in Arch, de Bot. I (1833) 513, described the genus Rea Bert, ms., with the 

 following species: R. macrantha Bert, et Dene (Masatierra), Berteriana Dene 

 (Masatierra), pinnata Bert, et Dene (Masatierra), neriifolia Dene (Masatierra), 

 micrantha Bert, et Dene (Masatierra), marginata Bert, et Dene (Masatierra: 

 Portezuelo), mollis Bert, et Dene (Masatierra: Portezuelo). In Com p. Bot. Mag. 

 I. 32 HOOKER and ARNOTT reduced Rea to Dendroseris. listing the following 

 species: D. macrophylla (with R. macrantha as syn.), Berteriana, pinnata, nerii- 

 folia, micrantha. marginata and mollis. 



JOHOW, Estud., reduced these seven species to four, declaring D. Ber- 

 teriana identical with pinnata and marginata with macrophylla and rejecting 

 D. mollis altogether. Of this, only the leaves, described as »subincano-velu- 

 tinas — glabrous in all the others — are known. There is no specimen in 

 Kew, nor in Paris, and I have not been able to discover the type. JOHOW 

 guessed that a stout specimen of Gnaphalium citrinum (= cheiranthifolium) or 

 some other similar plant was mistaken for Dendroseris. This is hardly probable. 

 In the locality given, Portezuelo, nothing like it is found, unless a young Robin- 

 sonia or Rhetinodendron was mistaken for a Dendroseris. With regard to Ber- 

 TERO's ability as an observer, this is difficult to believe. 



The treatment of Dendroseris in Johow's flora is not quite satisfactory; 

 still, he is not to blame. He had no opportunity to see Bertero's types, his 

 own material was scarce; further, when HOOKER and ARNOTT reduced Rea 

 macrantha to D. macrophylla they indicated the wrong course later followed by 

 Gay and JOHOW. HEMSLEY pointed out the validity of D. marginata, but 

 JOHOW brought this to macrophylla. He was equally critical against his own 

 discoveries, for the peculiar micrantha from the coast rocks was only with hesita- 

 tion classified even as a variety, v. pruinata. In the case of D. Berteriana. 



