NOTES FROM THE NATIONAL HERBARIUM 45 
regretted that the authors of the monographs in the Flora 
a have not more frequently consulted the Sloane Her- 
barium. The name of the plant, if Diascia be retained for the 
nian. 4 ie — : 
DIASCIA CAPENSIS comb. n 
nagallis capensis L. Bin Pl. 149 1753). 
Hemimeris bone-spet L. Pl. Rar. Afr. 8, n. 1 (1760). 
Pederota bone-sper Li. Sp. Pl. ed. 2, 20 (1762). 
eee nemophilotdes Benth. in DC. Prodr. x. 257 (1846) 
o did not recognize its identity with the Linnean plant; 
tL oo, iv. 2, 148 (1904). 
It will however be remembered that Mr. Hiern in the MS. of 
his monograph placed all the species described in Fl. Cap. as 
Diascia under Hemimeris, for reasons exposed in this Journal for 
1901, p. 103, and that their position under Diascia is due to the 
editor of the work (see J. Bot. 1904, 125). The matter is not one 
of those decided by the List appended to the Vienna Rules. 
Comprtontia ‘ Banks.” 
M. Chevallier in his monograph of Myricacee follows the oe 
Kewensis in attributing this genus to Banks, oe Honea cited 
by the latter being “ Banks ex Gaertn. Fruct. ii. 58 (1791). The 
first publication, however, is in Ait. Hort. Kew. iii. 334 [1789], 
where it is referred to “ L’ Hérit. stirp. nov.,” ‘the aarti C. aspleni- 
folia, being quoted from “L’Hérit. stirp. nov. tom. 2, tab. = hi 
former occurs in his letter to Dryander dated 8 89 (cee 
specimen, which is labelled “ Fearne Tree,” ine CH 8 1 (140), : 
‘fol. 37.” Petiver, ee writing in n 1700, says tint he had 
observed it for several years in the Apothecaries’ Garden at 
Chelsea (Mus. Pet. n. 773 ). 
I note that M. Chevallier, following O. Kuntze, iss up 
qrnna as od specific name for the plant. Linneus described 
m, chose the latter, and, except for those who adopt the 
ore 
Sesealty "diseredived principle of “ priority of place,” there seems 
no reason for abandoning so ent atest a name in favour of one 
which has nothing to recommen 
