156 AMKRICAN MIDLAND NATURALIST 



authors, to be shown further on. Whatever, Mitchell's name be 

 applied to or whether not with absolute certainty applied to any 

 known plant heretofore, there can be no question that Moench's 

 later application must be displaced by another even if a new one 

 must be made. The next nam^e in order for the Clematis segregate 

 is perhaps Sieboldia HoiTing.' Of this genus Clematis florida Thunb. 

 or Clematis japonica Thunb. should be type. Spach^ who admits 

 Moench's Viticella puts the former of these in that genus as Viticella 

 florida DC so for this reason was Sieboldia Hoffing suggested 

 here. Sieboldia Viticella (Linn.) or Clematis Viticella Linn., may 

 therefore be put in this genus unless the type were the other 

 plant Clematis japonica Thunb. or Sieboldia japonica (Thunb.) 

 Hoflmg. In the latter case Sieboldia would be but an unconditional 

 synonym perhaps of Clematis itself.^ 



As to the identity of Viticella Mitchell (1748 and 1769) more 

 than one suggestion has been made. Brand'^ apparently unmindful 

 that Mitchell's treatise of 1748 was also republished in 1769, and 

 apparently on the authority of Asa Gray^, states that it was 

 meant for Hydrophylhim appendicidatum Linn. The Index Kewen- 

 sis also maintained this supposed equivalence. Brand fails to 

 explain why Viticella Mitchell (1769) was not taken up by him 

 for the much later Decemium Raf.^ (18 17), unless he was unaware 

 of the 1769 edition of Mitchell, or unless he saw that the description 

 of Mitchell was but very questionably applicable to Hydrophyllym 

 appendiculatiim Linn. Comparison even superficial, of the character 

 of this plant with Mitchell's publication of Viticella shows that 

 the description not only varies much but is in many respects 

 indeed contradictory and quite inapplicable. 



Adanson^ in reference of course to the publication in the 

 first edition of Mitchell's work, and likewise Boehmer^ consider 



1 Hoffniannsegg, J. C. Preisv. Nachtr. p. 28, (1842). 



2 Spach, E. Hist. Nat. Veg. 7, p. 264, (1839). 



3 As I have been unable to study Hoffmannsegg's work it may be 

 that, the other plant be the type, and in case the genus Sieboldia be inap- 

 plicable I suggest the name Atrichlema to replace Viticella (Dill) Moench. 



4 Brand, A. Das Pflanzenreich IV, 251, p. 36, (1913). 



5 " Teste A. Gray" 1. c. 



6 Rafinesque, C. S. Fl. Ludov. p. 34, (181 7) in obs. 



7 Adanson, M. Fam. dcs PI. 2. pp. 226, 560, 619, (1763). 



8 Boehmer, G. R. in Ludwig-Boehmer, Def. Gen. PI. p. 27, (1760). 



