JOHNSTON, — A REVISION OF THE GENUS FLAVERIA. 281 
As he concluded both that the plant he had at hand was not a Milleria, 
and that Flaveria was not a good genus, he proposed a new name, 
Brotera, so that the plant stood as Bretera Contrayerva, Spreng. The 
plant described and illustrated by Sprengel is, however, an entirely 
different plant from Afilleria Contrayerba, Cav. Wildenow (1804) in 
Species Plantarum, iii. pt. 3, 2393, having previously used the name 
Brotera for a genus (Cardopatium, Juss.) published Nawemburgia triner- 
vata for Sprengel’s plant, not for Cavanilles’s. Lagasca, however, Gen. 
et Sp. Nov. 33, no. 406 (1816), named a plant Flaveria repanda, 
which Sprengel in 1826, Systema Vegetabilium, iii. 500, identified with 
both Nauemburgia and Brotera. Sprengel also enumerated F. Con- 
trayerba, Pers., F. angustifolia, Pers., and F. linearis, Lag. As late 
as 1832, Lessing, Synopsis Generum Compositarum, 235, maintained 
Nauemburgia distinct from Flaveria, and DeCandolle, Prod. v. 635 
(1836), retained Broteroa (Brotera, Spr.) trinervata. As the distince- 
tion between Brotera (or its synonym Nauemburgia) and Flaveria con- 
sists merely in the presence of setae upon the receptacle, a character 
variable in some genera of the Compositae, it alone is not sufficient 
to separate the two. As other characteristics of the plants correspond 
very well, it has seemed best to unite the two genera in this revision. 
Since the publication of the above species, as has been said, seven good 
species have been added to the genus, and about as many more plants have 
been given new names under Flaveria, which have subsequently proved 
identical with existing species or not to belong to the genus at all. The 
abundance of material at hand has afforded opportunity for better char- 
acterizing the species, for increasing the known range of some of them, 
and it has also furnished sufficient evidence for naming one variety and 
four new species of plants which have hitherto been placed with others. 
It may be said that the genus groups itself fairly well into subdivisions ; 
for example, F. australasica and F. repanda are similar in habit, and are 
_ the only two having setae upon the receptacle. Those whose heads have 
three bracts also form a characteristic group, which, however, passes into 
the group characterized by five bracts. Besides those with perennial 
roots which do not resemble each other at all, there are several other ex- 
ceptional forms, as F. anomala, which has the three bracts with bulbous 
bases, and F. chloraefolia, which is the only species with conspicuously 
perfoliate leaves. In the subgroup, which is characterized by possessing 
three involucral bracts, however, there has been considerable confusion in 
separating the species, due to the similarity sometimes in habit and again 
in floral structure.  chilensis is the only one of this group having a 
