THE NOMENCLATURE OF LACHNANTHES 23 
Ss + 16 mm. longus, lobi + 12mm. Lobi ad apicem aliquan- 
har obliqui bifidi et breviter mucronati. Squame pallide flave 
latiores quam longe + 1 mm. lon nge cr. 1:5 mm. late. 
Hab. From the neighbourhood of Beaufort Wes Hi. 
ae Flowered in Grihasiatenee Oct. 1896, and in vabosseant 
ear 
Siamen and style slightly exserted in open corolla. 
C. rusercunosa Lam. Dict. ii. p. 139 (1786). There can be 
little doubt that this is the plant figured by Burman, tab. 20, 
fig. 1. Cotyledon squamato edie, foliis oblongo- acutis, floribus 
magnis — rubris. It is therefore OC. granpirtora Burm. Prod. 
ap. p. 18 (1768), which name antedates Laicieale 
Lamarck makes a var. 8 founded on Burm. tab. 21, fig. 1, which 
iC, _ ventricosa Burm. ; but thes e plants have by subsequent 
Recent gatherings of C. g indefiord "Bane are :—R. Schlechter, 
no. 7323, from Biriohstowi! ‘800 ft., 26.1. 76. Herb. Austro- 
Afr. no. 1859. In rupestribus editioribus 2 na iano pone 
Capetown, anno 1899. Alt. 3000 ft., leg. P P. Maco 
The synonymy seems to Sipe as follows 
C. eranpirtora Burman, Prod. Fl. ep. p. 18 (1768). 
C. tuberculosa Lam. Dict. ii. p. 189 (1786). 
C. curviflora Sims, Bot. May. t. 2044 (1819). 
C. purpurea Haworth, Snppl. Pl. Suce. p. 23 (1819). 
(To be continued.) 
THE NOMENCLATURE OF LACHNANTHES. 
By James Brirren, F.L.S. 
A PRONOUNCEMENT on nomenclature contained in a note in the 
Gardeners’ Chronicle for 21 Sept. 1901 (p. 227), on the plant ee 
under the above name had lately formed the subject of a corre- 
Spondence in the Times, has induced me to look up the ahaa 
with pee ao oie result. 
e for the plant now adopted in Britton and Brown's 
Wustrated see (i. 443) is ‘*Gyrotheca capitata (Walt.) Morong,” 
@ reference to Bull. Torr. Club, xx. 472. In the Bulletin, 
Se cites Anonymo—an error for Anonymos which has been 
faithfully papied by all subsequent citers—capitata Walt. FI. Car. 
. nila Ji (1788) as a — 4 the plant, with the following 
18 placed by Walter among his Anonymo [sic] genera, the term he 
pees when he is doubtful about the genus, but his description is so 
full that he are can doubt what is meant.’ This note seems to 
€ been cause of the subsequent confusion; and it is ex- 
tremely diffenlt to understand how Morong came to write it. The 
