PN'ETTMON'ANTHE. 69 



another genus, became at once popular; and most of the herb- 

 alists for about a century thereafter both describe and figure 

 it under the name PNEUMOifAiTTHB. 



Two authors of that period, however, and both of them far 

 more than herbalists, declined to give their sanction to that 

 name, though both admitted the type to be distinct from Gen- 

 tiana, and the genus a valid one. 



In the year 1583, or twenty-two years after the publication of 

 PNEUMONAiTTHE, Caesalpino, whose book is venerated by all who 

 know the merest outlines of botanical history, as having been 

 the first book of Systematic Botany ever published, devotes a 

 chapter to this gentianaceous type, but holds the opinion that this 

 is the genus Vine eioxi cum of antiquity, and so, maintains that 

 name. 



The other exception to the use of Pneumonanthe as a genus 

 name, is that made by Renealmus, in the year 1611. This, too 

 is a most significant exception ; for, if Caesalpino less than 

 thirty years before had inaugurated the era of Systematic Bot- 

 any by defining all genera, and arranging them in family groups, 

 Renealmus anticipated by three centuries that which seems sure 

 of becoming the twentieth-century idea of the limits of a 

 genus. In Systematic Botany the gifted authors have not been 

 few whose ideas have waited a half-century, or a whole century 

 and even more, before obtaining general recognition and full 

 acceptance. But Renealmus thought and wrought out his 

 views and printed them three centuries ahead of time. And he 

 was the first great specialist in the study of the GentianaceEB ; 

 and proposed, in 1611, every segregation from the aggregate Gen- 

 tiana that has yet in these recent times been offered, besides 

 some which, if not yet reinstated, perhaps only wait for a gen- 

 eral recognition that may be accorded them in some future, 

 either near or distant. More than one century had passed before 

 such of his gentiana segregates as Chlora and Erythma obtained 

 their places in books of botany as good genera ; and Erythrcea 

 was published over and over again at least seven times under 

 seven different names between the years 1753 and 1853 ; so that 

 only within the last half -century has it come into possession of 

 its rightful name as assigned it by Renealmus almost three 

 hundred years ago. 



