Trinius in 1826 (Gram. Pan. 99) published two species of Pas- 

 palimi. The first of these appears as follows: ^' Paspahmi 

 angustifoliinn N. ab Es.! in Mart. Fl. Bras, ined." He remarks 

 that it is similar to the following species, P. lincare, but differs 

 especially in the smaller rugose spikelets ; and remarks further 

 that the name must be changed on account of the earlier name 

 of Le Conte. In 1828, Trinius (Sp. Gram. Ic. iii) figures and 

 again describes his Paspahiin hncarc, and cites, as of doubtful 

 synonymy, the P. angustifoliinn N. ab Es. of his own publication 

 (Gram. Pan. 99), adding in a footnote that what he had received 

 previously under this name from Nees himself appears to be a 

 different species on account of the much smaller spikelets which 

 are subrotund-oblong, transversely rugose and without hairs at 

 the base. The plate accompanying this description bears the 

 name Paspalian angustifoliiun. In 1829 Nees (Fl. Bras. Enum. 

 64) published a Paspahini angnstifoliiun which, judging from the 

 description, is identical with the Paspalum lineare of Trinius, pub- 

 lished three years previously, and indeed he makes the following 

 citation: "Paspahiin lineare Trin. ined." At the same time he 

 publishes a variety ;9, characterizing it thus: " glumis trans- 

 versim undulatis." As this rugose character of the spikelet 

 was employed by Trinius in his publication of P. angustifolitini 

 to distinguish it from his P. lineare, Nees, by his procedure, 

 attempted exactly to reverse the order of things. But whether 

 Trinius was right or wrong in interpreting Nees really is of little 

 consequence, for priority requires that we take up the species as 

 characterized by Trinius in 1826 ; so the Paspalitin angustifoliinn 

 Nees (Fl. Bras. Enum. 64) becomes .synonymous with P. lineare 

 Trin., and the variety fi must be considered the same as the 

 P. angustifoliinn Nees (Trin. Gram. Pan. 99). In 1829 Kunth 

 (Rev. Gram, i : 25), probably aware that the x\^vc\^ angustifoliinn 

 was antedated by that of Le Conte, proposed another name for the 

 species in the following manner : " Paspalum Neesii. (^Paspalum 

 angustifoliinn Nees ab Esenb.) Brasilia." He docs not designate 

 whether he meant the name published by Trinius for Nees or that 

 I)ub]ishcd by Nees himself, so the former must be understood. 

 In the Index Kcwcnsis the three names under discussion are 



