ROBINSON. — ON CERTAIN COMPOSITAE. 207 
and A. Drummondii Gray in Hook. Jour. Bot. and Kew. Mise. iv. 226 
(1852). Pumilo Preissii Sonder, Linnaea, xxv. 487(1852-53). Rutidosis 
Pumilo Benth. Fl. Austral. iii. 595 (1866). It is obvious that Ben- 
tham’s specific name Pumilo, though long current, cannot stand under 
the International Rules, since it is antedated by several other names. 
Of the various designations under which the plant has been described, 
Nees’s Styloncerus multiflorus bears the earliest date. It was pub- 
lished in the second fascicle of the second volume of Lehmann’s Plantae 
Preissianae, and the preface of this volume, which included three fas- 
cicles, was dated November, 1847. Meisner under date of July, 1848, 
speaks (Flora, 1848, p. 496) of the second and third fascicles of the sec- 
ond volume of Lehmann’s work as just issued, an expression, which at 
least so far as it concerns the second fascicle presumably means some- 
time during the spring or early summer of 1848. Schlechtendal’s 
Pumilo argyrolepis was also published in 1848, a circumstance raising 
no small doubt as to the relative priority of these names. Yet it is to 
be noted that on a preceding page of his paper (Linnaea, xxi. 444) 
Schlechtendal refers to an article in the issue of the Botanische Zeit- 
ung, dated 26 May, 1848, proving that Schlechtendal’s own publica- 
tion must have been distinctly later. Indeed, it is shown therein that 
in the meantime added plants had been found by one of his corres- 
pondents, had been sent for identification, were studied, described, and 
the descriptions had reached print, all of which is not likely to have 
happened between the end of May and July, when as stated by Meisner 
fascicles 2 and 3 of the second volume of the Plantae Preissianae 
had already been issued (at what previous date we do not know). 
There is certainly nothing to show that the paper of Schlechtendal 
preceded that of Nees. In default of such evidence, precedence may 
be determined by the second clause of Article 39 of the International 
Rules, which reads: “In the absence of proof to the contrary the date 
placed on the work containing the name or combination of names is 
regarded as correct.” This, in the case of Nees’s Styloncerus multi- 
sha is, as we have seen, “1846-47,” while with Schlechtendal’s 
umilo argyrolepis it is 1848. 
Onicin om pda or Puarerrantaus. The genus P eae 
thus Klatt, published in Flora, Ixviii. 203 (1885), was founded om 
specimens collected by Hugh Cuming (no. 2454). These were oh 
Posed to have come from the Philippine Islands both by Klatt 
described them, and by Schultz Bipontinus, who seems ~ nig placed 
4 preliminary examination of them. The genus was pooh fa Ab. 
in Coreopsis by O. Hoffmann in Engl. & Prantl, Nat. © Seba e (1894), 
5, 243 (1890), an opinion which he later—l. . 1v. Ab. 5, 
