338 THE JOURNAL OF BOTANY 
ur common species as the type.’ We do not see any possibility 
of “interpreting” it otherwise. ae (Syn. ed. 3, 403) clearly 
fines the t i 
because in Sp. Pl. he did not a the two species. 
absence of reference in Sp. Pl. to R. Syn. can hardly affect the 
case, as the Synopsis is only occasionally quoted. We confess our 
inability to discover to what ‘ Rules” Dr. Moss refers, and hence 
a express no opinion as to their clearness; but there is abso- 
utely no reason for supposing that at the beginning of April 1754 
a date of the Flora Anglica) Linneus yr in any way modified 
his conception of Melica nutans in Sp. Pl. (1753), seeing that in 
Sp. Pl. ed. 2 oa pa he J wean without alteration the description 
not think a { any “ambiguity ” in our remark that 
Hudson ‘“ was the first to distinguish ” the two species would os 
“apparent ”’ to the ordinary reader; it certainly could not appea 
es to me Moss, with whom we went so ae into their 
genes that if such names ‘can be proved to be invalid” they 
nnot be maintained, but in the — under consideration we do 
sat think such proof has been adduc 
ur position is indeed well summed up by Dr. Moss in a 
letter to one of us, in which he says: “I fully grant & —s by 
the sling a in Sp. Pl, Linneus included our two British 
; a 
species after Linneus; (3) that if the allocation of names of 
the first ‘ splitter’ after sera be followed, the names must 
be as you say. 
J AMES BRIrren. 
ALABASTRA DIVERSA.—Parr XVIII. 
By Spencer LE M. Moors, B.Sc., F.L.S. 
(Concluded from p. 297.) 
5. A New Hippertia rrom WeEsTERN AUSTRALIA. 
Hibbertia (§ HunrppertiA) Sargenti, sp. nov. Suffrutex 
bispithameus, caule sat valido paullo supra basin ramoso ramis 
erectis teretibus frequenter foliatis piloso-pubescentibus, foliis 
sessilibus oblongis nets arene ste oblo ie ess obtusis seepius 
aera floribus icc brevibus villosis insidentibus 
bracteis paucis ke lte scariosis conspicuis stipatis, 
