Blake — Plants of Venezuela and Curacao 37 
as there is not a shadow of a pretence to call it Franklinia; it 
differs from Gordonia in the filaments not being inserted in 5 solid 
bodies; from Haemocharis (G. Haematoxylon Swartz) in its mono- 
petalous corolla; from Stuartia. . . .” According to Art. 38 of the 
International Rules, “ the mere indication of species as belonging 
to a new genus . . . does not allow us to accept the genus in 
question as characterized and effectively published.” It is im- 
possible, surely, to argue that Haemocharis is characterized by 
inference in the statement that Lacathea differs from it “ in its 
monopetalous corolla,’ since there is more than one possible 
alternative to this. Haemocharis was not adopted by any subse- 
quent author or effectively published until 1826! (Mart. & Zuce. 
Nov. Gen. et Sp. i. 106), and in the meantime three other names 
for the group had received valid publication. The one in almost 
universal use until Kuntze’s ill-advised action, Laplacea HBK.., 
must unfortunately lapse, since the fascicle in which it was pub- 
lished, although forming part of a volume bearing the date 1821 on 
its title page, was not issued until February 1822.2 Of the other 
two names the earlier, both by printed date and by contemporary 
evidence,’ is Wikstroemia Schrad., and since it is the earliest valid 
name given to the genus and had not before been used in nomen- 
clature, it must be taken up for the group. The later combination 
of the two names, Wikstroemia and Lindleya, under Lindleya, by 
Sprengel (Vet. Akad. Handl. Stockh. 1821. 168, footnote (1821)), 
when publishing his own genus Wikstroemia (= Eupatorium), is 
of no consequence, since he was not dealing with two names of the 
same date. 
Unfortunately another and later use of the same name has 
become so firmly engrained in nomenclature as to have been placed 
on the list of nomina conservanda by the International Congress in 
1905. This is Wickstroemia Endl. Prod. Fl. Norf. 47 (1833), to 
1 
* See Barnhart, Bull. Torr. Club xxix. 595 (1902) 
an 
i ; and genera, 
in the magazines above indicated. Nees himself (Flora iv. pt. 1. 326-330 (7 
June 1821)), in a letter dated from Bonn, 9 May 1821, has noted the earlier 
appearance s publication and has equated the two sets of names. 
Under no. 15 (p. 328) he says: “ Wickstroemia fruticosa Schr. ist Lindleya 
semiserrata m.’’ 
