800 ON THE NOMENCLATURE OF SOME PROTEACE. 
it appeared t 
tenable ; but Iam disposed to believe that he will, on reconsidering 
the subject, see the propriety of “vers eon, it ; for the irregularity 
or unusual structur ure, which (if I understand him) he says sso! 
perfectly regular, and that too in opposition to some of the most 
nearly related genera, while the great uniformity and regularity of 
inflorescence forms an essential part of its een (Trans. Linn. 
Soc. : 133). Ben tham and Hooker follow Brown, as does Meisner 
in *Prodromus.’ The synonymy of the pee Be so far as those 
published by Salisbury and Brown are concerned, stands thus :— 
Paranomus Salisb., Parad. sub Niven Br., Trans. Linn. Soc. 
t. 67 (1807). x. 183 (1810). 
P. cumuliflorus Salisb.,in Knight, N. ee Br., Trans. Linn. 
, 68 (1809). 
37. 
; sceptriformis Salish., t.c. 69. -N. atria um Br., l. c. 184. 
. — each le. 70. N. spathulata Br., b. &. = 
It is no part of my purpose ~ correlate Salisbury’ s remaining 
apecidl of Pacaniens with Brown’s remaining Nivenias; this will 
Apart from those published in Knight’s work, certain other 
Proteacee must resume the names which were rejected by Brown. 
Such are— 
Hakea gibbosa Cay. Anal. Hist. Nat. i. 215 (1799) = H. pubescens 
Schrad. Sert. i. 27 fhe ), which is quoted by Brown and 
n. ee x: 181, Prod a Schrad. hac 
ake d by Brown and ena 
Sor latifolia Br.* (1810) = B. robur Cav. Io. vi. 29, t. 548 
B, cornet Br.t (1810) = B. premorsa Andr. Repos. t. 258 
_B. emula Br. (1810) = B. serratifolia Salisb. Prod. 51} (1796). 
* “Nomen Cavanillesii mutare coactus fui t 
homilie. quoniam revera frutex es 
+ Pees 3-4 pedalis, vix unquam orgyalis. alis.”” —Br., Prod. 392. 
ld 506 minimé premorsa, falsam nomen mutare itaque non hesitavi.”— 
+ Brown cites this as a — 56 
| “A a sorting rl da but Bentham (FI. Austr. v. 556) 
iiemcneenee en a ee 
