210 THE JOURNAL OF BOTANY 



adhering to this view, and although keeping Emilia and Notonia 

 apart from Senecio, still failing to appreciate the difference 

 between Gymira and Crassocephalum. Oliver and Hiern (Fl. 

 Trop. Afr, iii. 402 (1877) ) commit the same fault, and 0. Kuntze 

 (Eev. Gen. PI. i. p. 331 (1891) ), trusting these views to be correct, 

 takes the obvious course of restoring CrassocepJialum to its historic 

 position but vice Gymcra, a proceeding which, as shown above, is 

 without warrant. Hiern (Cat. Welw. PI. i. p. 593 (1898) follows 

 suit, and taking my cue from this authoritative lead, I have 

 described four undoubted species of Gynura as Crassocephalums. 

 We find the climax to this series of misapprehensions in the 

 Beport of the Vienna Congress (1905, p. 255), which pronounces 

 that Gymira Cass, must be used in place of Crassocephalum 

 Moench. 



O. Hoffmann's classification of Senecio and its immediate 

 aUies (Engler & Prantl, Pflanzenfam. iv. 5, p. 295 (1894) ) differs 

 from Bentham's mainly in this, that he reads subgenus where 

 Bentham reads genus. He also suppresses Crassocephalum, and 

 includes by name C. cernuum in Gynura, thus giving a further 

 lease to the mistake under notice, and this although the style- 

 arms of Gynura cernuu Benth. are certainly not those which he 

 correctly gives as characteristic of Gynura. Kecently these views 

 have been emphasized by Dr. Eeinhold Muschler (Engler, Bot. 

 Jahrb. xlii. pp. 1-74 (1909)). In this essay Muschler almost 

 succeeds in getting back to Cassini's original position, for he holds 

 that the nature of the style-arms of Gynura cerniia Benth. must 

 cause its removal from Gynura, and justifies the plant being 

 placed in a subgenus apart from the subgenus Eu-Senecio, which 

 comprises the true Senecios. Unfortunately he has overlooked 

 the facts cited above, or he would have seen that Crassocephalum 

 was ready to his hand ; instead of which he coins a new name 

 {Gynuropsis) for his proposed subgenus. This name is highly 

 appropriate, but it must yield to Crassocephalum on the ground 

 of priority. 



A few words will suffice to explain my own position. Ee- 

 membering how important style-arm characters are in the 

 classification of Composite, I am strongly averse to combining 

 genera which differ in this most important particular. For me, 

 then, Emilia, Notonia, and Crassocephalum are valid genera, and 

 it is with unalloyed satisfaction that I find myself on this point 

 in unison with two such capable observers as Cassini and 

 A. P. de Candolle. 



Muschler mentions only seven species as referable to his sub- 

 genus Gynuropsis, but further examination shows this estimate 

 to be far too low. In fact, after study of British Museum material 

 I find that there are no fewer than sixteen species of Crasso- 

 cephalum, and further search at other herbaria will probably add 

 to the number. These sixteen species may be arranged in the 

 following manner : — 



