14 ON SOME SPECIES OF CRACCA 
Plukenet plants, as is shown by his descriptions and specimens, 
and by the labels attached to the latter. DeCandolle, too (P Prodr. 
ii. 250), under Tephrosia virginiana Pers., cites ‘* Galeya virginiana 
Linn. Spec. 1062, non hort. Cliff.,” showing that the discrepancy 
between the two descriptions had not escaped him. Solander also 
erie the difference between the plants, and the following note 
n his MSS. shows that he was misled by the Plukenet figure: 
land (Jezreel Jones, Vernon, and Krieg) and Carolina (Catesby), 
he writes: ‘‘Secundum differentiam specificam’ legumina esset 
retrofalcata, sed in speciminibus e Carolina iiss legumina fuere 
recta com ot ressa. An distincta planta? sed assimilatur figure 
vival) in Ameen. Acad. in 7156; the Saco here mere in- 
cludes the plants of Hort. Cliff., Gronovius, and Mitchell, of each 
of which, as has been said, the types exist. These types and 
descriptions refer, not to the plant now universally known as 
Cracea (or 7 ‘ephrosia) virginiana, but to Cracca spicata QO. T. 
spicata Torr. & Gray)—a name which must give place to C 
virginiana 
The history of the plant will be best shown by the following 
synonymy, in which references are given to the principal works in 
which the true Cracca ar evar of Linneus has been entered under 
various names. From this it will be seen that the right use 0 
virginiana ceased with Willdenow i in 1800, since which time Galega 
ata of Walter, under various synonyms, has been accepted as 
ne type of the plant; it was transferred to : nee by mete ey 
an n 
He says (Bot, Gaz. 1899, 199, footnote) :—“ The name 7. lilies is 
first employed by Persoon in his Synopsis ene wa is there used 
raed for the American plant. . . . The usage of De Candolle 
ny more recent Huropean writers, by pore the name Tf. 
in is applied to an East Indian and species, to which 
rsoon’s description had no he si i hatened, is clearly an un- 
warrantable transposition. is true th as an earlier 
Galega villosa than that of Mi ated but this should not invalidate 
v.88 osia villosa Pers., which is clearly applied to the American 
plant, and is antedated by no homonym. ‘The str sas - Old 
Worl, although possessing an earlier specitic as not 
a 
that genus receive another specific designatio 
Dr. Robinson n’s remarks are based on his ie natural assump- 
