ROBINSON, — SYNOPSIS OF THE GENUS NOCCA. 467 
II.— SYNOPSIS OF THE GENUS NOCCA. 
NOCCA, Cav. Icon. iii. 12, t. 224 (1795); Pers. Syn. ii. 498 (1807) ; 
La Llave & Lex. Nov. Veg. i. 81 (1824) ; Spach, Hist. x. 40 (1841). 
Noceaea, Willd. Spec. iii. 2393 (1804) ; Jacq. Frag. 58, t. 85 (1805) ; 
Spreng. Anleit. ii. 548 (1818) ; Less. Linnaea, vi. 695 (1831), & Syn. 
151 (1832); not Moench. Zagasea, Cav. Ann. Cien. Nat. vi. 331 
(1803). Lagascea, Willd. Enum. Hort. Berol. 941 (1809); Spreng. 
1, c. 549 (1818) ; HBK. Nov. Gen. & Spee. iv. 24 (1820); DC. Prodr. 
v. 91 (1836); Benth. & Hook. f. Gen. Pl. ii. 342; Hoffmann in Engl. 
& Prantl, Nat. Pflanzenf. iv. Ab. 5, 212. — Heads 1- to rarely 2-flowered, 
aggregated in dense campanulate or subglobose capitate glomerules ; 
these subtended by ovate to linear more or less specialized herbaceous 
bracts; proper involucre calyx-like, tubular, gamophyllous, 5-toothed. 
Flowers alike, perfect, fertile. Corolla with narrow proper tube, en- 
larged cylindric throat, and 5-toothed limb, yellow to white or reddish 
purple, well exserted from the surrounding involucre. Style-branches 
long, attenuate ; achenes columnar or attenuate toward the base; pap- 
pus of 2 to several short scales or rudimentary. — Annual herbs or more 
often shrubs, probably all natives of tropical America, a single annual 
species now widely distributed in the tropics. Leaves chiefly opposite. 
The name Mocca (given by Cavanilles in 1795 in honor of Dominico 
Nocca, professor of botany at Padua) is clearly the one to be employed 
for this genus by those who wish to apply consistently the generally 
conservative Berlin Rules. From the definite characterization and ex- 
cellent figure given by Cavanilles there can be no doubt as to the iden- 
tity of his genus Wocca, and the fact that the name was taken up in the 
Same sense within fifty years by Persoon, Jacquin, La Llave, and Sweet, 
should establish its validity. The form Moccaea, adopted by various 
botanists from Cassini to Kuntze, may be regarded as a different spelling 
of the same name. Although substantive in form it has no advantage 
over Nocea commensurate with the indefiniteness which succeeds any 
modification of a name as originally published, and it is preferable there- 
fore to take the name in its earliest form. While always reluctant to 
change any current generic name like Lagascea, I hesitate the less in 
this instance from the fact that this genus has attained no importance 
in horticulture or pharmacy, and its nomenclature has accordingly little 
°F no significance outside technical systematic botany. 
