334 PROCEEDINGS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY, 
publication, however, as it is not accompanied by any description or 
synonymy whatever. The specimen cited is H. micranthum, Less. 
(Z. ligustrinum, DC.). 
Dr. Gray evidently got his idea of Schultz’s Z. glaucum from a plant now 
in herb. Gray collected by Schaffner on Popocatapetl and labelled in 
Schultz’s own hand “ Z. glawcum, Sch. Bip. in Ehrenb. pl. Mex. no. 397.” 
This plant is a species evidently near Z. micranthum, Less., but differing 
in its impunctate leaves, &c. 
In 1884 Dr. Klatt published, 1. ¢., the first description of 2. glaucum, 
but it is quite evident from the characters given as well as from a good 
drawing and some fragments in his herbarium that Dr. Klatt had quite a 
different plant before him from either Z. glaucum, Gray (nomen 
nudum) or Z. glaueum, Sch. Bip. in herb. (coll. Schaffner). Identical 
with Dr. Klatt’s EZ. glaucum (which, being the first species described 
under that name, must stand) is HZ. Orizabae, Sch. Bip., described on 
the subsequent page (Leopoldina, xx. 90) by Klatt himself. This species 
is clearly shown by the excellent specimens distributed by Liebmann, 
no. 80, and Nelson, no. 1737 (from near Reyes, Oaxaca). The leaves 
are small, thickish, and subsessile and the branches numerous and 
ascending. 
The original Z. glaucum, Sch. Bip. in herb., which is quite different 
was also distributed by Schultz under a name approaching “ Z. popoca- 
tapetlense,” but with some differences in the spelling. Mr. Hemsley 
refers EZ. popocatapetlense (nomen nudum) to Schlechtendahl and cites 
under it Ghiesbreght’s no. 529 (which with its glandular-punctate leaves 
revolute at the base is Z. micranthum, Less.). Schultz’s name in Dr. 
Gray’s hand appears on the label of Ghiesbreght’s specimen in herb. 
Gray, and the substitution of Schlechtendahl as authority is certainly @ 
clerical error in the Biologia Cent.-Am. and Index Kewensis. While 
Schultz’s species seems to be a good one, it would seem unwise to 
launch it under a different spelling of a name already used in another 
significance. It has therefore seemed best to describe it as above under 
anew name £, capnoresbium. 
The synonymy of the related species here mentioned may be stated 
thus : — 
E. micrantuum, Less. Linnaea, v. 138 (1830), not of Lag. (which 
was an Ageratum), 
_--«E. ligustrinum, DC. Prodr. v. 181 (1836). 
£. semialatum, Benth. Pl. Hartw. 76 (1841). 
__ £. popocatapetlense, ems). Biol. Cent.-Am. Bot. ii. 99 (1881). 
is a * ; 
* 
