2 Contributions from the Gray Herbarium | 
kiinftig ihm vielleicht zu ertheilenden Namen, Sabadilla offci- 
narum nur fraglich andeuten.”’ From this it would appear that 
Brandt was desirous of treating V. officinale as a distinct genus 
but that he lacked the requisite courage! He therefore seems to 
have attempted a compromise by suggesting the binomial neces- 
sary should his subgenus Sabadilla ever be accorded generic rank. 
That he himself thought that he was publishing a generic name, 
as Dalla Torre & Harms have construed, is not to me evident and, 
moreover, the one time he attaches a specific name to Sabadilla 
he does so in a manner which makes it virtually in synonymy. 
lingly the name to be used for this group of plants is Schoend- 
caulon rather than Sabadilla, even though volume thirteen of 
Hayne’s work appeared before volume four of the Ann. Lye. N.Y. 
since the name Sabadilla was not originally given generic status. 
Dichopogon fimbriatus (R. Br.), comb. nov. Arthropodium 
fimbriatum R. Br. Prod. 276 (1810). A. laxwm Sieb. in Roem. & 
Schult. Syst. vii. 441 (1829). D. Sieberianus Kunth, Enum. 1. 
623 (1843). 
Bentham in his Flora Australiensis vii. 59 (1878) wrote, “ A. 
fimbriatum, R. Br. . . . of which no specimen is preserved in his 
herbarium, is probably this species,” i.e. D. Sieberianus. There is 
little doubt, it seems to me, but that this supposition is correct 
from the essential agreement of the original diagnoses. Robert 
Brown’s plant, furthermore, came from Port Jackson (Sidney) and 
it was there or in that vicinity that Sieber secured his specimens. 
Accordingly I am taking up for this plant the earliest specific 
name, A. fimbriatum. 
Arthropodium milleflorum (Red.), comb. nov. Anthericum 
sailgion Bat Lal. i. 4. 68 ea aoe A. paniculatum Andr. 
Bot. Rep. t. 395 (Sept., 1804). 
Apparently this attractive Australian lily has never been prop- 
erly christened. pee 
Trichopetal lumosum (R. & P.), comb. nov. Anthert 
slinndenes Bae p rl. oS iii. oe aaes, T. gracile Lindl.? 
Bot. Reg. 1535 (1832). : 
There seems to be no doubt that this genus is not monotyple a 
some botanists have inferred. The plate in Ruiz & Pavons -_ 
shows a plant with obtuse lanceolate-obovate perianth apt 
and in this respect at least it resembles the plate of Lindle 

