From the above it will be noted that neither of Thunberg's specimens belong to 
M. hispidum, Linn. 
M. laeve, Thunb., ` Fl. Cap.,” p. 425. 
One specimen, collected near Sundays River, in the Uitenhage Division. As the 
name JM. laeve had previously been used by Aiton, Haworth changed the name to-- 
M. Thunbergii, ue " Mise.,” p. 86 (1803). 
M. laere, Thunb., in “ Acad. Leop. -Car. Ephem.,” Vol. VIII, Append., p. 16 (1791), 
not of Aiton. 
Thunberg's EE agrees with those of Rogers No. 4656, collected near Zwartkops, 
in the Port Elizabeth Division. 
This eastern plant is similar to and might be mistaken (in the dried state) for 
M. dissimile, N.E.Br., which grows near Capetown, but differs from that species by having 
more obtuse leaves, no bracts at the base of the pedicel, and apparently smaller flowers. 
But the two require to be compared when alive, so that their distinctive characters can be 
properly contrasted. The prostrate stems of M. Thunbergii are 2 lines thick, very smooth, 
and pale brownish. 
M. lanceum, Thunb., “ Fi. Cap.,” p. 417. 
One sheet, containing two good specimens. The locality is not stated. There is 
another specimen of it from Upsala Botanic Garden, named “ M. trrpoliwm,” and also 
another mounted on the sheet of M. ovatum (which see). The original reference for it is 
M. lanceum, Thunb., ` Prodr.,” p. 89 (1800). 
Sonder’s description of this, in “ Fl. Cap.,” Vol. Ul, p. 455, is fairlv correct, except 
that I believe the stems to be procumbent or st raggling. Possibl ly the plant figured by 
De Candolle, “ Plant. Grasses,” t. 47, as M. expansum, may be M. lanceum, Thunb. ; it 
does not seem to be M. erpansum, Linn. It also seems closely allied to M. varians, Ha W., 
and may prove to be that species when better known. 
M. lineare, Thuab., ~ Fl. Cap..” p. 411. 
One sheet of specimens, for which the localities Zwartland and Groenekloof, in the 
Maimesbury Division, are given. This plant is— 
M. gramineum, Haw., “ Obs.,” p. 470 (1793). 
ae ieneare, -Thunb., ~ Prodr.,” p. 88° (1800): 
M. pyropaeum, Haw., `` Suppl..” p. 99 (1819). . 
M. tricolor, Sims, ` Bot. Mag.,” t. 2144 (1820), and Haw.“ Rev.,” p. 163 (1821), not 
of Willdenow. 
Thunberg’s specimens agree with those of Wolley Dod No. 1796, from sandhills at 
Duinefontein. 
M. gramineum was founded upon the figure and description in Petiver, ` Gazophylacium, ” 
Vol. 1; p. 10, t. 88, f. 6, and “ Cat.,” Vol. Il, p. 4, No. 488, which clearly represents this 
plant, although Petiver described the petals as yellow; but, as ke seems to have had only 
dried specimens, he was perhaps misled by the yellowish colour they sometimes assume 
when dried. 
Berger. ` Mesemb.,” p. 38, also quotes M. clavatium, Haw., as a synonyin of this species, 
but that name was likewise founded upon a plant figured by Petiver on the same plate 
(t. 88, f. 7). which represents quite a different plant with creeping and probably perennial 
stems. The M. tricolor, Willd., qaoted by the above authors for this species, is MW. criniflorum, 
Linn. f. (which see). 
M. linguaeforme, Thunb., “ Fl. Cap.,” p. 424. 3 
This is represented by four ee, Fae. and three flowers, labelled as from a plant 
cultivated in Upsala Botanic Garden. which certainly do not belong to M. linguiforme, 
Linn., but probably to— 
Glottiphyllum longum, N.E. Br., in Gardener’s `` Chronicle ” (1922), Vol. LXXI., p. 9 
Mesembryanthemum longum, Haw., * Obs.,” p. 177 (1795). 
