209 



THE GENUS CBASSOCEPHALUM Moench. 

 By Spencer le M. Moore, B.Sc, F.L.S. 



Moench (Mefch. p. 516 (1794) ) proposed this genus as a resting- 

 place for Senecio cernuus L. fil. (Suppl. p. 370 (1781))." His 

 description is a poor one, and he missed the only good character 

 justifying his course, viz. that of the style-arms, while his state- 

 ment " ab Senecione calyce monophyllo plane differt " is incorrect. 

 In 1825 the same plant was studied by Cassini (Diet, xxxiv. p. 389), 

 especially with reference to its peculiar style-arms, which he 

 described with his usual accuracy. Cassini objected to the 

 retention of Moench's name, not only on account of errors in 

 description, but because the fault of hybridism attaches to it, and 

 in lieu he proposed the name Cremocephahtm, which A. P. de Can- 

 doUe (Prod. vi. p. 297 (1837) ) and Miquel (Fl. Ind. Bat. ii. 97 

 (1856) ) adopted. Cassini (ojj. cit.) immediately proceeded to 

 characterize a second genus, Gyjiura, the difference between which 

 and Senecio relates, as in the other case, entirely to the style-arms, 

 these organs, as he observes, being more like those of Vernonia 

 than of Senecio. The style-arms of Crassocephalum differing from 

 those of Senecio in the presence of a filiform appendage to the 

 otherwise truncate and penicillate style-arms of Senecio, it is 

 clear that Crassoce^halitm and Gynura are quite different 

 genera. 



Lessing (Syn. Comp. p. 395 (1832) ) failed to endorse Cassini's 

 views. Evidently he did not attach sufficient importance to 

 style-arm characters in this immediate group, in spite of the notice 

 directed to them by Cassini, for under Crassocephalum he included 

 not only Emilia but even Gynura as well. De Candolle {op. cit. 

 pp. 298-300) restored all these genera, only adopting the name 

 Cremocephalum for Crassocephalum, as already mentioned. He 

 greatly enlarged Gynura, but his fourteenth species, G. sarcobasis 

 DC, bears little resemblance to its congeners, and in fact is a 

 Crassocephahcm. 



The next mistake lies at Bentham's door, who (Hooker's Niger 

 Fl. p. 437 (1849)), although, if his view were correct, Crassoce- 

 phahcm would have priority, places Crassocephalum cernuum in 

 Gynura, it thus becoming Gynura cernua Benth., and three other 

 species, since reduced to two, having the style-arms of Crassoce- 

 phalum are ascribed to Gynura in the same work. We find 

 Bentham (Gen. PI. ii. 445 (1873) ) a quarter of a century later 



* I was in hopes that the type-specimen of S. cernuus L. fil. might be in 

 the Linnean herbarium; but Dr. Jackson, who has kindly searched for me the 

 catalogue he is preparing of the contents of that collection, tells me it is not 

 there. This, however, is not an important matter, as an excellent figure of 

 the plant is given by Jacquin (Hort. Vind. t. 98) under the name S. rubens 

 Juss. The date of this work being 1776, it is clear that Jussieu's name has 

 priority. 



Journal of Botany. — Vol. 50. [July, 1912.] q 



