149 
M. bicolorum, Thunb., ` Fl. Cap.,” p. 427. 
This is represented by a sheet labelled `` M. bicolor,” containing three short flow ering 
branchlets from a plant cultivated in Upsala Botanic Garden, which seem to belong rather 
to M. coccinewm, Haw., than to M. bicolorum, Linn. 
M. bracteatum. 
There are three sheets bearing this name, one of which has been named by Sonder. 
the others are respectively marked a and f~. Sheet a contains four pieces of a plant 
cultivated in Upsala Botanic Garden, the others were collected in South Africa. This 
species is not enumerated in Thunberg’s `` Flora (apensis.” 
Sheets a and { contain specimens of—- 
M. mutabile, Haw., “ Obs.,” p. 377 (1795). 
The other sheet is correctly named, by Sonder— 
M. bracteatum, Ait., “ Hort. Kew.,” ed. 1, Vol. II, p. 185. 
M. calamiforme, Thunb., “ Fl. Cap.,” p. 417. 
One small specimen, which is JZ. en Linn. Thunberg does not mention a 
locality for it. ; 
M. capillare, Thunb.. ` FI. Cap., DAL. 
There are two sheets bearing this name, marked a and $, and the specimens on each 
sheet are separately described by Thunberg as forms a and 2 of M. capuillare. 
Sheet a contains two specimens, which have been marked by Sonder “a” and * 6.” 
The right-hand specimen, marked `` 7” quite agrees with Thunberg’s diagnosis of 
M. capillare and his description a. This plant is not M. capillare, Linn. f., but is— 
M. brevifolium, Ait., ‘‘ Hort. Kew..” ed 1, Vol. IT; p. 188 (1789), and of Haw., “Obs.,” 
p. 274 (1795), but not of Haworth’s later works nor of other authors.* 
M. capillare, Thunb. in “ Nov. Act. Acad. Leop.-Car. Ephem.,” Vol. VIII, Append.: 
p. 13 (1791), and * Fl. Cap.,” p. 419, as to description a, which is the only description 
given at the original place of publication, description 3 being absent from that work; 
not of Linnaeus fil. 
M. subglobosum, Haw., `` Misc.,” p. 62 (1803). : 
The specimen is a branch or portion of an erect glabrous shrublet, with the main stem 
about 1 line thick, and the branchlets about 4 line thick, distinctly papillate. Leaves 
opposite, about 14-14 line long and 1 line dk somewhat subglobose or very. shortly 
* 1 here wish to point out that N. brevifolium of Salm Dyck, of Sonder, and of Renee is a totally 
different plant from the M. brevifolium, Ait., differing from it by having longer leaves, “which are not 
terete or subglobose, but flat above and keeled beneath, and has very different flowers. Its correct 
synonymy is— 
M. erigeriflorum, jacq., ““ Hort. Schoenbr.,” Vol. IV, p. 39, t. 477 (1804). 
M. latleriflorwm, D..C., Plant. Grass.,” t. 164 (1828). 
M. brevifolium, Salm Dyck, “* Mesemb.,” § 50, f. 4 (after 1836) ; Sonder, * Fl. Cap.,” Vol. H, p. 342; 
and Berger, `` Mesemb.,” p. 95, not of Aiton. nor of Haworth. 
ds te is only one example out of many of the confusion that has been made by later authors accepting 
as correct the names given hy Salm Dyck, apparently without the slightest investigation. = 
In Haworth’s time there were evidently two plants in cultivation under the name of M. brevifolium, 
neither of them being the same as M. erigeriflorum. In 1795. Haworth considered them to be forms 
of one species, but afterwards separated them. 
One of them, as described by Haworth (“ Obs.,” p. 276). had leaves which * rarely measure a quarter 
of an inch,” and were covered with rounded (not acutely pointed) papillae, or, as Haworth states, the 
papillae “were by no means pubescent.” This plant was the true M. brevifolium, Ait. The other 
Haworth describes at first as M. brevifoliwm var. longum, and states that it has leaves up to 1 inch long, 
with “ pubescent papulae which point downwards and looked in a microscope like minute hooks of glass 
or ice.” This plant is quite unknown to me. In his ` Synopsis”’ and later works Haworth retains this 
plant alone under the name M. brevifolium, and places the true M. brevifolium, Ait., as a synonym of 
M. subglobosum, Haw. But Aiton’s name, being the older, must be retained, 
