REPORT FOR 1913. 



409 



about 20 species in the genus Glaucium and two in the restricted 

 genus Chelidonium. Are then all the species of Glaucium to be 

 named Chelidonium, and a new generic name found for the two species 

 of Celandine ? There is a stronger example in the Linnean genus, if 

 such it could be called, Cheiranthus, which has thirteen species. 

 This consists (giving the Kew Index names) of five species of 

 Malcomia, five (now four) of Mathiola, only two of the modern 

 Cheirwnthus, and one of Erysimum. Shall, therefore, the upwards of 

 thirty species of Cheiranthus be called Gheiri, and upwards of forty 

 of Malcomia be called Cheiranthus ? 



Take again the Linnean genus Antirrhinum. The genus Linaria 

 which Linnaeus had wrongly merged into it was separated by Miller 

 in 1754. Can it be for one moment considered that he acted wrongly 

 in giving the generic name Linaria to those plants which, following- 

 previous botanists, he considered to belong to that group 1 Why 

 should he reverse the Tournefortian names by calling them 

 Antirrhinum, which they were not 1 Who is bold enough to venture 

 to rename them now % The Linnean genus was made up of about 

 forty species. Three only of these belong to the Antirrhinum section, 

 one is an Anarrhinum, and thirty-four are Linaria. This is quite 

 equivalent to the case of Statice. The proportion of species is given 

 by Uphof (Die Pnanzen gattungen) as Antirrhinum 30, Linaria 160. 



The genus Fumaria L. consists of eleven species. Three of these 

 only are Fumaria. Indeed, some authors put spicata into a separate 

 genus, Platycapnos. One is a Sarcocoprios, two are what the Ind. 

 Kew. calls Dicentrae, while five belong to Corydalis = Capnoides. 

 Therefore, if the more numerous section is to retain the original name, 

 Fumaria vice Corydalis, it necessitates a new name for Fumaria. 

 It may here be urged that Corydalis is one (among many) of the 

 Nomina Conservanda, but nomenclaturists will not welcome additional 

 evidence of the inequality of the Rules. 



Take again the genus Cistus, which, as defined by Linnaeus, had 

 thirty- seven species. Miller separated the genus Helianthemum in 

 1754, taking out twenty-six species, leaving eleven only, the plants now 

 called Cistus. Was he wrong in giving the older name to the larger 

 section, notwithstanding that the new genus had a larger number of 

 species than the old % This proportion is still maintained, Uphof 

 giving Cistus 30 species, Helianthemum 135. Are all these latter to 

 be called Cistus, as the Sea Lavenders are to be called Statice ? 



