844 THE JOURNAL OF BOTANY 
culis pilosis, scandens, passiflore arog pag eed of vbepriinyadoes 
0, f. 7 (erroneously cited as 8 by Linneus) ); followed by 
a note, ‘Sata, multoties mi eine, florere renin: hine etiam 
num de genere minus tutus. Hl fortus] U [psaliensis].” Schreber 
quotes Linneus’s brief diagnosis—‘‘ Dolicho sprain: een 
foliolis trifidis’’—in a slightly altered pe and cites Plukene 
descriptive phrase from the as unde r plate 120 Pehiie it sais 
‘* Trifolium Ee a lal not 
Almagestum. We have in Herb. ‘loans, xciv. 45 and xeviii. 128, 
Plukenet’s specimens of his plant and in the general Herbarium 
those of Aiton’s Phaseolus trilobus, under which, as also in Solander’s 
MSS., was cad Dolichos trilobus L., whence the name was 
transfer red. That, however, was placed in Pachyrhizus by Richard 
when dashliahing that genus, and is referred in Indea Kewensis to 
P. angulatus. 
Schreber, re also includes under P. trilobatus, P. aconiti- 
folius Jacq., and his figure represents that plant. Jacquin based 
and Petiverian name and “D. Amman ex Anglia pee and 
sadowui by Dryander with the Jacquin name in the manner in 
which he was accustomed to write up ope? this is the ll 
referred to in Ait. Hort. Kew. ed. 2, i se 
seems clear that Schreber’s nities t be adopted, as it is 
not only the oldest trivial but the nso Pembina under the 
genus. The two species, so far as the present note is concerned, 
will stand— 
PHASEOLUS TRILOBATUS opus in Nov. Act. Nat. Cur. iv. 132 (1770) 
excl. syn. Jacq. et 
Polichos joetebistus Link “Man 01 (1767) 
Phaseolus trilobus Ait. Here ee iii. 30 (1789)! excl. syn. ; 
. Brit. Ind. ii, 201. 
PHAsgonvs aconrmironius Ja acq. Obs. iii. 2, t. 52 (1768). 
P. trilobatus Schreb. 1. ¢. ex parte (%. e. quoad syn. Jacq. et ic.), 
AiscHyYNoMENE acuxeata (Decade II, 2), tab. v. fig. 1 
This is the plant usually known as Sesbania aculeata Pett, 
it is only on account of this overlooked name of Schreber that that 
species can retain its accepted specific name, as the earliest 
trivial, apart from this, seem 18 to be ASschynomene bispinosa Jacq. 
i iii. 13 (1786). Apart from Schreber, the firs fl bets of 
aculeata was by Willdenow (Sp. Plant. seh 1147) in 
Index Kewensis the authority for 8. pte is given 
as Poir. Encycl. vii. 128. But Poirot) employed throughout the 
spilling of the name, Sesban, employed by Adanson when foun ing 
the genus; and it is difficult to see on what ground this can be 
rejected. Itis not ruled out by any bec of ¢ the Vienna Con- 
gress and it is not in the list of ‘‘ nomina rejicienda’’ appended to 
its Report. Rather would it seem to have received express sanction, 
for Art. 24 says that “generic names may be taken from any source 
