ROBINSON. — DIAGNOSES OF AMERICAN EUPATORIEAE. 277 
the memory of the late Mare Micheli, at one time editor of the interesting 
exsiccatae of which it forms a part. 
EvupatoriastruM NeE.sonul, Greenman, var. cardiophyllum, Ros- 
InsoN & GREENMAN, n. var. Habitu et floribus formae typicae; foliis 
suborbicularibus duplicato-dentatis basi valde cordatis. — Los Pifios, 
Chiapas, Mexico, 2 June, 1904, #. A. Goldman, no. 1052 (type, in hb. 
U.S. Nat. Mus., tracing and fragments in hb. Gr.). 
Kanimia nitipa, Bak. in Mart. Fl. Bras. vi. pt. 2, 370 (1876). In 
the Index Kewensis, ii. 3 (1895), Hooker, f. and Jackson reduce this 
species to A. “ erythralina,” crediting the latter name to Bentham and 
Hooker, f. Gen. ii. 247 (1873). If the combination had been correctly 
made in the Genera Plantarum it would obviously antedate Baker’s 
binomial and stand according to the rule of priority under the genus, 
but this is not technically the case. At the place indicated, Bentham 
and- Hooker, f. merely refer to Kanimia, the plant which they call 
“ Mikania erythralina, DC.” The combination Kanimia erythralina is 
not made, and indeed there is no assurance that the authors of the Genera 
Plantaram regarded the transferred plant as a distinct species or that 
in naming it under Aanimia they would have adopted the combination 
K. erythralina. All that their statement conveys is the fact that the 
generic affinities of De Candolle’s plant are with Kanimia rather than with 
Mikania. There is, however, an added reason why the transfer in the 
Genera Plantarum should not in this instance be regarded as equivalent 
to the creation of the new binomial K. erythralina, for De Candolle’s 
Specific name was erithalina, given from a fancied resemblance of the 
plant to Erithalis. Kanimia nitida, Baker, is not ouly the first correct 
combination accompanied by accurate synonymy, but happily it is also in 
accordance with the most rigid priority of the specific name, for it is 
founded on Eupatorium nitidum, DC. Prod. v. 180 (1836), which has 
priority of position over Mikania erithalina, DC. 
CaRPHEPHORUS REVOLUTIFOLIUS, DC. Prod. vy. 133 (1836). This 
species, described by the eldest De Candolle, was based upon a specimen 
- Sent to him by Sternberg from the herbarium of Haenke and supposed 
to have been collected in Mexico. Concerning the plant Bentham and 
Hooker, f. (Gen. ii. 249) say “ GC. revolutifolius, DC. 1. c. 133, e Mexico, 
et C. cordifolius, DC. Prod. vii. 267, e Brasilia, nobis ignoti, certe e 
deser. e genere expellendi sunt.” By Hemsley (Biol. Cent.-Am. Bot. ii. 
108), C. revolutifolius, DC., is still included in the Mexican flora, but 
with the comment that both this and C. ? triangularis, Gray, are doubt- 
ful species. At the request of the writer, Mr. Casimir De Candolle has 
