14s 
M. aureum, Thunb., “ Fl. Cap.,” p. 425. 
The type consists of one small specimen, collected on the Karroo, between the Olifants 
River and the Bokkeveld Mountains. As it is not the M. aureum of Linnaeus, Sonder 
renamed it :—- 
M. auratum, Sooder in ` Fl. Cap.,” Vol. I], p. 449. 
M. aureum, Thuab. in ` Nov. Act. Acad. Leop.-Car. Ephem.., ” Vol. VIEL Append., 
16 (1791), not of ee 
It is evidently an erect shrub, with straight stems or main branches 1-14 line thick, 
swollen at the nodes, with short. opposite, nearly erect or very ascending branchlets, that 
are densely papillate and of a pale biscuit colour as described by Sonder, but the main 
stem has a smooth, greyish-brown bark. Leaves opposite. 3—5 lines long and 1 line thick, 
obtuse or subacute, apparently subterete, channelled down the face and seemingly papillate; 
glabrous. Flowers solitary or 2-3 in a cyme at the ends of the branchlets. Pedicels 
1-14 line long, papillate. Calyx papillate : tube (ovary) obconic, about 5 lines in diameter 
in young fruit ; lobes about 3 lines long, broadly ovate, with a blunt dorsal point below 
the apex of the membranous margin. Petals wanting on the specimen, but described 
by Thunberg as linear and yellow. He also states that the stigmas are 5, subulate, acute, 
and erect. 
| have given the above description of Thunberg’s type specimen because Sonder has 
evidently confused it with another species collected by Zeyher, from which he has partly 
described, since he gives as a character, ` radiments of old remaining leaves very spinous,” 
which is not at all the case on Thunberg’s specimen. 
M. barbatum, 'Thunb.. `` Prodr.,” p. 89, and ` Fl. Cap.,” p. 418. 
One sheet containing three branches of— 
M. barbatum, Linn., and of `` Bot. Mag.,” t. 70. 
M. stelligerum, Haw.. “ Synop.,” p. 278 (1812), and `` Rev.,” p. 190; Sond. in 
FL. Cap,” Vol. H, p. 447 ; excluding synonyms, not M. stelligerum, Haw. in `* Phil. Mag.,” 
(1824), Vol. LXIV, p. 61. 
The modern monographers of this genus, Sonder and Berger, do not seem to have 
noted that Haworth, finding he had misunderstood the plant to which Linnaeus gave the 
name M. barbatum and had originally described that plant under the name of M. stellagerum, 
and another species under the name of M. barbatum, has corrected that error in the 
` Philosophical Magazine ~ (July, 1824), p. 61, where he transposes the two names, so 
that the correct svnonymy for M. barbatum, Linn. is as given above, and for M. stelligerum 
as follows : 
M. stelligerum, Haw., in * Phil. Mag.” (1824), Vol. LXIV, p. 61, not of Haw., 
“Synop.,” p. 278. 
M. barbatum, Haw., ~ Synop.,” p. 277; Sonder in ` Fl. Cap.,” Vol. I, p. 446, 
excluding synonyms; not of Linnaeus nor of Berger. 
The M. barbatum, Berger, `` Mesemb.,” p. 80, on account of its having acute papillae 
is certainly neither J. acy Linn., nor M. stelligerum, Haw., both of which have 
blunt papillae. It is possibly M. intonsum, Haw. I do not know what M. stelligerum, 
Berger, `` Mesemb.,” p. 8 Be be, but from the more numerous bristles described as 
present at the apex of is leaf, it is probably distinct from both JM. barbatum and 
M. stelligerum, and is possibly a garden hybrid. 
Thunberg states that M. barbalum grows upon Paardeberg, at Ere and elsewhere. 
But doubtless he confused two or more species in his mind, from. seeing similar species in 
different localities. 
M. bellidiflorum, Thunb., `` Fl. Cap.,” p. 418. 
This seems to be represented by a sheet bearing the name ~ M. bellidifolium (2),” 
containing a single flower with two bracts at the base of its pedicel. It is quite 
indeterminable. No locality is mentioned for it. 
