462 



follow Mueller in substituting Candollea, Labill., for Styli- 

 dium, Swartz, and say (p. 162) : — "The genus Candollea was 

 founded by Labillardiere in 1805; one year later the same 

 author applied the name Candollea, apparently by an over- 

 sight, to another genus ( Dilleniaceae ) . As both genera could 

 not stand, Swartz changed Candollea (Candolleaceae) in 1807 

 into Stylidium, and consequently the order into Stylidieae, 

 but in doing so he made the twofold mistake of changing the 

 name of the plant that has undoubtedly the claims of priority 

 and of selecting a name (Stylidium) already applied by 

 Loureiro in 1790 to a genus of Cornaceae. There can be no 

 doubt that F. v. Mueller was right in restoring the name 

 Candollea to the genus first named so by Labillardiere (Can- 

 dolleaceae). Labillardiere's second genus, Candollea (Dil- 

 leniaceae), of course, had to go, and is now united with 

 Hibbertia." 



The whole question is of great importance to Australian 

 systematic botany, and therefore the following comments will 

 not be out of place : — 



1. Labillardiere did not apply the name Candollea in 

 1806 to a genus in Dilleniaceae "by an oversight," but because 

 he found that the genus in Stylidiaceae which he had named 

 Candollea in 1805 had, earlier in the same year, been published 

 as Stylidium by Swartz in YVilldenow's Spec. PL iv., 146. 

 This was the first description of that genus, the second being 

 in 1807. The Stylidium of Swartz has, therefore, a clear 

 priority over the first Candollea of Labillardiere. 



2. Thus the only question to determine is whether the 

 Stylidium of Loureiro, published in 1790, is a valid genus in 

 Cornaceae and therefore invalidates the Stylidium of Swartz. 

 To this the reply is that the Stylidium of Loureiro is con- 

 sidered by all the great botanical authorities (Bentham and 

 Hook., Gen. PI. ; Index Kewensis ; Engl, and Prantl, Nat. 

 Pflanzenfam.) as a synonym of Marlea, or of Alangium if 

 Marlea be considered a section of that genus. It is not even 

 certain whether it can be identified with Marlea. H. Harms, 

 in the Nat. Pflanzenfam., iii., 8, 260, says: — " Stylidium 

 chinense, Loureiro, Fl. Cochinch. ed. Willdenow (1793), p. 

 273, is generally quoted as a synonym of Marlea bec/onii folia, 

 Roxb. ; but as Loureiro speaks of a 'corolla in f era' and 'drupa 

 xapera,' the description he gives does not agree with Marlea 

 hecjonii folia. In any case, it now seems to me questionable 

 whether Loureiro's diagnosis can be referred to Ma?-lea." 



3. Mueller, after he had attempted to restore Labil- 

 lardiere's first Candollea and Loureiro's Stylidium, renamed 

 the Australian plant, Marlea vitiensis, Benth., as Stylidium 

 ritiense, F. v. M., but in the "Census of New South Wales 



