1 r,;i 



Otto Kuntze on Sequoia. — One of Kuntzc's innovations is 

 the reference of the two living species of Sequoia to the genus 

 SteinhauLra.'^ The latter was established by Presl in 1838 t to 

 include certain strobili of unknown affinity, so-called in honor of 

 Henry Steinhauer. Three species were described, /. r., suh- 

 globosa, oblonga and jiiiiuita, all from the Cretaceous at Perutz, 

 Bohemia. A variety of remains of a more or less doubtful 

 character have since been referred to this genus by various 

 authors, which it would be unprofitable for me to discuss here. 

 For a long time Presl' s siibglobosa has been assumed to represent 

 cones of Sequoia Stcrnbcrgi Heer, and iniiinta the cones of 

 Sequoia Laugsdorfii (Brongn.) Heer, while oblonga has included 

 a variety of objects, e. g., fruits of Liqiiidambar ciiropaenm A. Br. 



Endlicher in 1847 established Sequoia for the California red- 

 wood. Now supposing that some day it is conclusively proven that 

 Sequoia senipervirens is identical with Sequoia Laugsdorfii which 

 it resembles very much and which ranges in considerable abund- 

 ance from the upper Cretaceous through the Tertiary. Should 

 we then name the redwood Steinhaucra viinuta under which 

 name Presl described certain fossil cones whose identification with 

 those of Sequoia Laugsdorfii is not altogether beyond question ? 

 I hold not. Priority may demand it but common sense makes it 

 ridiculous, and so long as there are more students of the liv^ing 

 than of the extinct floras of the globe, just so long would it be 

 unwise to resurrect a name which was nothing but the name of 

 a form-genus. It may be strictly canonical, but it would display 

 a reverence for canon unsurpassed by some of the early fathers 

 of " the true church." The strict interpretation of priority dis- 

 closes many weird names, especially in the domain of fossil 

 plants, such as Palaeoxyris, which may be vegetable or may be 

 Paleozoic Selachian egg-cases; in either case it is in no wise 

 related to the living genus Xyris, or Prototaxites, which in all 

 probability is a Devonian fucoid in no wise related to Taxites. 



The case presented by Sequoia is however an anomalous one 

 that is not likely to present itself very often, and one that it 



* Post X: Kuntze, Lexicon Generum Phanerogamarum, 533 Stuttgart, 1904. 

 f Sternberg, Fl. d. Vorwelt, 2: 202. 



