94 THE JOURNAL OF BOTANY 
description of Anonymos capitata is indeed full, and ‘‘no one can 
doubt what is meant’’; at any rate, no one can doubt that Lach- 
5 
oO 
Qu 
oO 
Mm 
a 
a 3 
_ 
Qu 
& 
a 
mM 
i) 
& 
acd 
m 
— 
m 
cS 
A 
| 
— 
bs} 
cr 
me 
Tm 
Oo 
preceding page 
Walter describes his Anonymos tinctoria—‘ foliis radicalibus longis, 
hb 
earlier authors—e.g. Pursh (Fl. Amer. Sept. i. 31), Dryander in 
Herb. Banks, Bosc, Steudel (Nomencl. ed: 2, ii. 2)—and is cited by 
Elliot (Bot. 8. Car. i. 47) in establishing his genus Lachnanthes, 
which he based on “the minute descriptions of Walter and Michaux 
compared with living specimens.” 
merican botanists are of course right in taking up Salisbury’s 
nomen nudum, 
Unfortunately neither Anonymos is preserved in Walter’s Her- 
barium, in which, however, there is a specimen of Lachnanthes 
enera.” His A. capitata is correctly referred in 
the Index Kewensis to Burmannia capitata, and is cited by J. F. 
Gmelin (Syst. ii. 107) when establishing the genus Vogelia which 
he proposed for that plant. 
The Gardeners’ Chronicle says that the plant ‘was introduced to 
British gardens in 1812, according to Nicholson”; but a reference 
to Salisbury’s paper, quoted above, would have shown that it was 
introduced by Fraser in 1788. 
The synonymy of the plant is:— 
GyRorHEca Tinctor1a Salisb. in Trans. Hort. Soc, i. 827 (1812). 
Anonymos tinctori [a] Walt. Fl. Carol. 68 (1788), 
Heritiera tinctorum J. F. Gmel. Syst. Nat. ii. 118 (1791); Bose 
in Bull. Sciences Soc. Philom. Paris, no. 19, p, 145 (1799) ; 
Anonymo (sic) capitata Morong in Bull. Torr. Olub, xx.: 472 
(26 Dec.) 1893; Coville in Mem. Torr. Club, v. 117 (1894) ; 
ritton & Brown, Ilustr. Flora, i. 443 (1896); non Walt. 
Gyrotheca capitata Morong, Coville, and Britton & Brown, Ui. ce. 
I am entirely at one with the criticism of the Chronicle on 
what it styled “the (very curious but very unsatisfactory plan of 
adopting a mutilated name and attributing it (in brackets) to some- 
