ALABASTRA DIVERSA 809 
of the two small specimens seen scarcely warrants affirmation upon 
this point. 
Note on Hamacanravs. 
differently shaped corolla as regards both tube and limb, and the 
far-exserted stamens and style. Recently Dr. Lindau (Engler & 
1 
d 
this author of his Ruellia somalensis (Bot. Jahrb, xx. p. 14), which 
later became Satanocrater somalensis Lindau, creates the suspicion 
that S. somalensis and Hemacanthus coccineus may be one and the 
Same thing, although there are certain discrepancies in the two 
descriptions.* This is a point which Lindau will himself be able 
0 clear up, as he has access to 9. somalensis, and can compare that 
plant with the figure of the other. What I wish to do here is to 
defend myself against the appearance of having neglected literature. 
As a fact, I saw the description of the alleged Ruellia, but i 
mediately passed it over, as I did not think it possible for anyone, 
least of all for so accomplished a botanist as Lindau, to take for a 
Ruellia the plant I was dealing with. Perhaps this hesitation of 
Lindau’s between Ruellia and Satanocrater, two absolutely different 
although neighbouring genera, may be taken as affording fair proof 
of my judgment not being at fault in proposing a new genus for 
the reception of the plant under notice. Anyway, I do not feel 
inclined to recede from my position, and regret that we should be 
at variance, : 
What S. paradoxa Lindau and §. Ruspolii Lindau are I do not 
know. Mr. . Clarke (FU. Trop. Afr. v. p. 69) says the latter is 
only the old 9. fellatensis Schweinf., and he makes S. paradoxa a 
synonym of S. somalensis, which I cannot help thinking to be 
Incorrect, 
ty Ci de , 
€ven were there not, it might perhaps be conceded that a barbarism 
in four syllables has some slight advantage over one in five. More- 
called myself « §, Moore,” and wish to be known as such, and as 
such alone 
* The leaves of H. coccineus are said to be ‘“ 2°5-4:0 cm, lat,” This is 
Obviously a lapsus calami for 0:25-0-4 em, 
