Macbride — Notes on certain Leguminosae 15 
NEPTUNIA PROSTRATA (Lam.) Baillon, Bull. Soc. Linn. Par 
356 (1883). Mimosa prostrata Lam. Dict i. 10 (1783). MM. ha 
| Phe 2 Suppl. 489 (1781) as to name and ee imen cited, not as to 
description according to Vahl, Svmb. Bot. iii. 102 (1794). N. 
oleracea Lour. Fl. Cochinch. ii. 654 (1 790). 
A very unfortunate situation in nomenclature exists here. M7- 
mosa natans L. f. as to deseription at least is M. triquetra Vahl, 
subsequently treated as Neptunia triquetra (Vahl) Benth. But 
the specific name natans is quite inapplicable to the terrestrial | 
plant of Vahl; and indeed the specimen cited by Linnaeus filius 
is said by Vahl, 1. ¢., to be the floating plant commonly known as 
N. oleracea. Accordingly it does not seem that the interests of 
either accuracy or reason would be satisfied by taking up the name 
natans for the plant described by Linnaeus filius and later called 
triquetra by Vahl. But on the other hand there would seem to be 
no greater justification for applying the Linnaean name to the float- 
ing plant since this plant clearly is not described unless the word 
“natans”’ be accepted as description. The binomial Mimosa 
natans L. f., therefore, is, so far as regards its application to the 
hydrophytie N. oleracea, a nomen nudum, and in any case it is 
certainly a nomen confusum to be discarded in accord with Art. 
51, 4 of the International Rules because it is a name which “ be- 
comes a permanent source of confusion o1 error” if used. With 
the rejection of the Linnaean binomial the first available name for 
the floating plant, then, is M. prostrata Lam., i. e., N. prostrata 
(Lam.) Baillon, 1. c. Lamarck’s name is based aliaeily on 
. Niti-Toddaraddi. Rheed. mal. 9. tab. 20’ which is a good illus- 
tration of the characteristic N eptunia commonly known as N. 
oleracea, Furthermore, Lamarck describes definitely this plant so 
there can be no question whatever as to the application of his 
name even though he refers to it ‘‘ 8 Mimosa natans”’ as a smaller 
state. And his characterization of this “ variety ” Mimosa natans 
cannot be regarded as defining by emendation the Linnaean 
Species, which, even though he refers to it binomially he evidently 
treats varietally, since his characterization is in no way diagnostic 
but t merely describes a less vigorous state. Lamarck’s own specific 
name prostrata, therefore, being perfectly definite in its application, 
is the olga name for the plant later described as Neptunia ole- 
racea Lour., 
