Hoseanthus Merrill, n. gen 



BY H. X. ElDLET. F.E.S., C.M.G. 



In Journal No. ?b, p. 114, Mr. Merrill gives as a New Genus 

 Hoseanthus for my genus Hosea (Yerbenaeeae) on the ground 

 that Dennstedt had previously published a genus Hosea. This is 

 quite unnecessary additional synonym. Dennstedt got hold of a 

 copy of Eheede's Hortus Malabarieus a work in several volumes of 

 rather poor drawings of South Indian plants, and published a 

 Sehluessel znm Hortus Indicus Malabarieus in 1818. 



In eases where the drawing was so poor as to be not identi- 

 fiable he gave it a new generic and specific name, but as no descrip- 

 tion whatever was published by him or even any suggestion as to 

 the order of the plant these names rank as nomina nuda and are 

 valueless. One of these plants was apparently a shrub which was 

 so ill done that it is impossible to certainly identify it and to this 

 sketch Dennstedt gave the name in his list of Hosea. AA liatever 

 the picture was intended to represent, it has doubtless long ere this 

 received a properly accredited name and description, but I cannot 

 find that any one has ever identified it and I do not know what it 

 is meant for. AAliere the drawings in this work have been later 

 identified Dennstedt's name has sometimes been retained, though 

 as he did not ever describe one of them, the names were mere 

 nomina nuda and might have been dropped. This being the case 

 it is quite unnecessary to add to the ever increasing synonyms by 

 substituting Hoseanthus for Hosea to retain the latter name for a 

 plant which no one has ever identified and probably never will 

 identify, and which the author Dennstedt never saw in his life nor 

 I expect, would have recognized if he did see it. Dennstedt was 

 evidently not so much a botanist as a compiler of lists: after 

 publishing a Flora of ATeimar in Germany he published about -1 

 compilations of lists of cultivated plants and the above mentioned 

 Sehluessel. and nothing else. One cannot protest too strongly 

 against the unnecessary increase of synonyms for plants. Scienti- 

 fically it has no value at all and only adds to confusion, and bulk of 

 literature for no useful purpose. 



Jour. Straits Branch R. A. Soc, No. 



