JONES. — A REVISION OF THE GENUS ZEXMENIA. 167 
4. helianthoides, Benth. & Hook. f. Gen. ii, 371 (1873), is better re- 
stored to Wedelia helianthoides, HBK. 
4, Lindenii, Sch. Bip. in Seemann, Bot. Voy. Herald, 306 (1852-57). 
Lasianthaea Lindenii, Sch. Bip. 1. c. “ Foliis alternis ab omnibus differt, 
32 poll. longis, {-1 poll. latis, elliptico-lanceolatis, utrinque attenuatis, 
petiolatis, serratis, penninerviis, supra asperis, infra tomentosis, corymbo 
polycephalo (floribus flavis: Linden).” This inadequately characterized 
plant has not been identified among the specimens examined. 
4. longipes, Klatt, Bull. Soc. Bot. Belg. xxxi. 202 (1892) and xxxv. 
287 (1896), as to Pittier’s nos. 4365, 6961, and 6991, is referred with 
some doubt to Wedelia ee Hemsl. 
Z. ovata, Benth. & Hook. f. Gen. ii. 373 (1873).  Tithonia ovata, 
Hook. Bot. Mag. t. 3901 (1842). This plant is exactly Z. helianthoides, 
Gray. 
4. reticulata, Benth. & Hook. f. Gen. ii. 373 (1873), is better restored 
to Wedelia 
Z. seid: Coulter in J. D. Smith’s Enum. Pl. Guat. iv. 86 (1895), 
is probably Perymenium Nelsonii, Robinson & Greenman. 
4. stenantha, Hemsl. Biol. Cent.-Am. Bot. ii. 174 (1881), is Z. crocea, 
ray. 
_ 4. tageti flora, D. Don ex Sweet, Hort. Brit. ed. 2, p. 309 (1830), is a 
name only. 
4. tequilana, Gray, Proc. Am. Acad. xxii. 425 (1887), is Otopappus 
acuminatus, Wats. 
4. trachylepis, Hemsl. Biol. Cent.-Am. Bot. ii. 175 (1881), is not 
satisfactorily distinguishable from Z. scandens, Hemsl. 1. c. 
4. villosa, Polak, Linnaea, xli. 579 (1877), was based on a Costa 
Rican plant, described as having the involucre 2 cm. broad. It is be- 
lieved that a part of the type-material was deposited in the herbarium of 
the Royal Botanical Museum at Berlin, but Professor Urban, who has 
kindly made a-search for it, writes that it is not to be found under Zez- 
menia. It is probable, therefore, that it has been found to belong else- 
where and has been removed to some other genus. 
