135 



the idea of nomenclatorial types and they certainly contain no 

 warrant for asserting that the first specimen cited by Maze and 

 Schramm, which may or may not exist in any herbarium, "stands 

 good as type" of Avrainvillea sordida Crouan. Avrainvillea 

 sordida Crouan being really according to the Gepps' showing, a 

 mix-up of five species, and the later Avrainvillea sordida Murray 

 & Boodle being a mix-up of three, the adoption of ''Avrainvillea 

 sordida Murray & Boodle p.p.'' as the "oldest specific name to 

 which no doubt can be attached " strikes the reader as a trifle odd. 

 The adoption of the name Avrainvillea Mazei Murray & Boodle 

 for the species for which the reviewer and Mr. F. S. Collins have 

 of late used the name Avrainvillea longicanlis (Kiitz.) Murray & 

 Boodle p.p. hinges on the authors' doubts as to the identification 

 of Kutzing's Rhipilia longicanlis. Kiitzing's description and 

 figures of this plant seem at first sight not altogether easy to 

 harmonize with any one of the species recognized today. The 

 original specimen or specimens, collected in the West Indies, 

 apparently do not exist in the Kiitzing herbarium, now owned by 

 Madame Weber van Bosse, and the authors of the monograph 

 under review state that they have not seen them. Kiitzing in 

 publishing Rhipilia longicaulis cited "Herb. Sonder." The 

 reviewer, a few years ago, learning that the Sonder herbarium 

 had become part of the National Herbarium of Victoria, Austra- 

 lia, wrote an inquiry to the acting curator of the latter herbarium 

 who courteously replied that there was in the Sonder collection 

 a specimen from Antigua bearing the name Rhipila longicaulis 

 Kiitz. He furthermore kindly enclosed small fragments, suf- 

 ficient for a microscopic examination, from both flabellum and 

 stipe. A study of these fragments led to the adoption of the 

 name longicaulis for the species described by Murray and Boodle 

 as Avrainvillea Mazei. The authors of the new monograph, 

 relying upon Kiitzing's figure of flabellum filaments, which from 

 the scale of magnification used appear to be much more slender 

 that those of A. Mazei, have expressed doubts as to the correct- 

 ness of the reviewer's interpretation of Rhipilia longicaulis and 

 have suggested the disturbing possibility that the name longi- 

 caulis may have to be taken up for the species which they call 



