THE NAME ALECTOROLOPHUS 53 
Dyserth. There are specimens .in ae Harris Herbarium marked 
* Dyserth, July, 1863. Jos. Whitta 
*Galium Mollugo L. Sealand, spon ‘the Leet ; near Nannerch. 
(To be continued.) 
THE NAME ALECTOROLOPHUS. 
By W. P. Hiern, F.RB.S. 
ich appear in British floras under Rhinanthus. For this—while 
iagiiaing the discussion of nomenclature—he gives his reasons 
at some length, and it may be of interest to reproduce these, with 
certain comments which they suggest. He says :— 
“Without entering upon questions of nomenclature, many 
botanists will agree that it is better to follow the monographer of 
the genus in adopting ae name of Alectorolophus in preference to 
hinanthus Linn. Dr. von Sterneck devoted some years to the 
Smag investigation of the variable forms grouped under the 
genus, and his onagtaph, modelled upon Prof. von Wettstein’s 
work. ‘on Rualeds a, gives evidence of long and conscientious 
tudy. His conclusions on the whole, will probably stand the 
ae: of time, and udgement is entitled to respect. The 
following list exhibits the disintegration of the genus Rhinanthus 
Linnzus, who enumerates seven species :— 
Rh. orientalis = Rhynchocorys orientalis Benth. 
Rh. Elephas = Rhynchocorys e ee Griseb. 
Rh. Trizago = Bellardia tri ritag 
Eh. capensis = Bellardia trixago Ath 
Rh. indica = Geniosporum elongatum Benth. (Lamiacez). 
Rh. virginica = = Gerardia asin pial Pursh; while the type- 
apo en in Herb. Linne2anum = Lamourouxia serratifolia H. B. 
Eh. Crista-galliis a pataire at three species (and perhaps more}: 
While the Linnean generic term thus includes so many hete: 
geneous elements, it is imoult z Dea why any cyatematii 
who appreciates the value of either clearness or scientific precision 
can defend the retention of the Linnean name.’ 
In a note prefixed to the part of his Prodromus which contains 
the foregoing, Mr. Williams says: “ British botanists, fearful of 
falling foul of the fences of the Vienna recommendations, have 
been loth to retain the generic name of Alectorolophus. But, as 
is rightly pointed out by Rouy in the last volume of his Fl. de 
France Gust to hand) [xi. 126], the retention of Rhinanthus is 
contrary to Art. 45, which affirms that when, in the disintegration 
of a genus, one of the parts detached ey oe pepate species than 
any of the others, ben manne is eserves i bes be wine) ope 
tains th the greater nu 
species of oo Pes ee Btn of Bhinanthus,t the . 
