1897.] D. Prain — Some additional Legumiiiosae. 405 



If this hunting for prior names is to be made a pastime, which it appears to have 

 become •with a number of botanists who, if the truth must be told, mostly hold 

 appointments wherein they are paid to do work far other and far more useful, then 

 let the game be played, as games should, — fairly. When priority-mongers cease 

 to be disingenuous, — when they cease to put into the mouths of authors expressions 

 of opinion that the authors themselves did not utter, and would probably most 

 strongly repudiate, — serious botanists, who are content to use nomenclature as a 

 working-tool and not as a plaything, will be able to meet them halfway and to 

 help in the task of bringing order out a chaos that, after all, is largely of their 

 own making. This much, however, is certain ; if good is to be done, it must be done 

 by men of greater judgment than any who as yet have taken it upon themselves 

 to criticise the nomenclature codified in De Candolle's Prodromus, in the Genera 

 Plantar um of Bentham and Hooker, or in Asa Gray's Manual. 



Turning from this profitless discussion to the species of Mucuna themselves, 

 one finds that various groupings of these have been proposed from time to time. 

 There are two very natural groups within the genus, readily determined by the 

 nature of the seeds. In one group, which exactly coresponds to Stizolobium P. 

 Br., the small oval seeds have a small lateral oblong-linear hilum ; in the other, 

 which equally exactly corresponds to Zoophthalmum P. Br., the large discoid seeds 

 are provided with a large hilum that extends round from two-thirds to three- 

 fonrths of the periphery of the disc. So very natural is the distinction between 

 the two gronps that the writer, though he does not here venture to formally pro- 

 pose the step, is quite convinced that, were the genus adequately monographed, 

 it would be found necessary to recognise in them two separate genera ; when 

 this happens the bibliographical discussion will end, of its own accord, in the 

 restoration of both the generic names proposed by P. Browne. 



In Prodromus ii. 405, De Oandolle has practically recognised the groups in 

 question but has only treated them as separate sections ; he has used to designate 

 them, in a sectional sense, the two generic names of P. Browne. M. De Candolle did 

 not, however, note the error into which M. Adanson had fallen regarding the seeds ; 

 like Adanson, he has attributed to all the species a circumferential hilum. He 

 has thus been led to use, in distinguishing his two sections, a purely external 

 and, as we now know, a somewhat variable character, — the presence or absence 

 of plaits and furrows on the sides of the pods. This has led to his inclusion in 

 Stizolobium of one species (M. gigantea) that most certainly does not belong to 

 the section. 



In the Genera Plantarum, for the first time, Bentham and Hooker made full 

 use of the natural character derived from the seeds. At the same time, however, 

 they continued to employ the character used by M. De Candolle. They have con- 

 sequently been led to recognise three sections : — 



1. Citta ; including those species with a circumferential hilum and with plaits 

 apross the face of the pods. 



2. Stizolobium ; including all species with a small lateral hilum. 



3. Carpopogon ; including those species with a circumferential hilum but without 

 plaits across the face of the pods. 



This arrangement has obviously the great disadvantage of intercalating the very 

 distinct and very natural group Stizolobium between two artificially separated portions 

 of another equally natural group, similar in rank and importance to Stizolobium. 



The name Citta is one that had been used generically by Loureiro, but it is not 



