147 
as applied to the stem and calyx. Thes> words I interpret to mean, rough from being 
covered with raised points. The only specimen having this character is on the left- hand 
side of sheet 2; it seems to have been turned over when remounted, therefore the surface- 
structure is obscured by the adhesive matter upon it, so that the minute acute points or 
minute conical hairs can only be clearly seen on a few parts of the specimen, which has 
alternate branches, all directed to one side of the stem. ao branch ends in an oblique 
compound cyme composed of 3-6 branchlets bearing 1-3 flowers, and these branchlets 
are also directed to one side. The specimen seems to ‘be from a growing plant just coming 
into flower; with apparently linear, half-terete, or perhaps channelled, acute leaves 
21—5 lines long. 
The right-hand specimen on this same sheet has its branches placed at nght-angles 
to each other, and they and the calyx were smooth when alive. But this smoothness is 
obseured on the dried specimen by minute, whitish blisters in places, caused by some 
secretion of lime or salt. The calyx seems also to be different in form from that of the 
right-hand scabrid specimen. 
Sheet 1 contains two specimens, both alike, which differ from the specimens on 
sheet 2, by having the stems and calyx covered with blunt papillae (not points), which 
Thunberg in other cases of the same structure describes as “ papilosis.” The branches 
also differ from those of the scabrid plant in being placed at right-angles to each other. 
Therefore, as Thunberg’s description of M. articulatum does not fully apply to any other 
than the left-hand specimen on sheet 2 bearing that name in his Herbarium, and especially 
as it well agrees with that specimen in the most important character he mentions, that 
specimen must be taken as being the type of that species, and its synonymy will be — 
M. articulatum, Thunb., in “Nov. Act. Acad. Leop.-Car. Ephem..” Vol. VIII, 
append:, p. 10 (1791), and “ Fl. Cap.,” p. 415. 
:M.-secundum, Thunb., “ Mus. Nat. Acad. Upsal.,” Part II, p. 12, name only (1827). 
This specimen of M. articulatum seems to me to be the same plant as M. secundum, 
Thunb., which shows the scabrid character much more clearly. And I consider both 
to be the same species as Burke No. 468, from Dikkop Flats near the Fish River, in Albany 
Division, and Burke and Zevher No. 705, which is probably from the same region. As. 
Thunberg collected near the Fish River on the Uitenhage side of it, he may have. obtained 
his specimen from that region. But the localities he gives for M. articulatum are ` the 
Karroo near the Olifants EE towards the Bol er Mountains, in Zwartland, and 
elsewhere.” As none of his specimens have the locality attached to them, it is impossible 
to assign the particular locality to any of them. 
The other two species under `` M. articulatum”’ 1 am unable to identify, and consider 
it inadvisable to describe them from those specimens. 
N 
At the original place of publication four varieties are enumerated, and var. 0 1s 
described as ` major procumbens ” instead of `` minor procumbens ” as given in Thunberg’s 
“ FL Cap.,” ed. Schultes. 
Sonder in ` Fl. Cap.,” Vol. IL, pp. 434 and 435, quotes M. articulatum, Thunb., as a 
synonym partly of M. junceum, Haw., and partly of M. granuhcaue, Haw. These 
determinations are utterly wrong, for ‘neither of Thunberg’s specimens is like either 
M. junceum or granulicaule of Haworth, both of which have been completely misunderstood 
and wrongly described by Sonder, both being much more slender species than the plants 
mistaken for them by Sonder, and by Berger, who has mainly copied from Sonder and 
other works. 
It may not be out of place to call attention to the fact that in consequence of Haworth’s 
M. junceum being completely misunderstood, and because many of the species belonging 
to this group are very similar in appearance, at least half a dozen different species are to 
be found in Herbaria named JM. junceum, not one of them, so far as I have seen, being 
correct. 
