2. 
Decision iy . Art. A51 (Brit. Prop. Art. 64; Rec Syn. p. 71) 
was adopted at Cambridge (Report, p. 605). 
The second case of illegitimacy included in Art. A51 is: 
"If it is a binary name published in contravention of A.rt 
that is if its author did not adopt the earliest legitimate 
epithet available for the group with its particular circum- 
scription, position and rank. 
Example : Tetragonolobu s Scandalida Scop. (1772) is 
illegitimate because Scopoli did not adopt the earliest 
specific epithet available, namely, siliquosus , when he 
transferred Lo tu s siliquosus L« (1759) to Tetragonolobus. v 
Case A> Panic urn molle Michx . 
1 - P an i cum molle Michx. (1803). Mot p. molle Swartz (1788). 
p. molle Michx. , being a later homonym of the validly 
published name p. molle Swartz (1788), is illegitimate 
(Decision l). The epithet molle used by Miehaux is not 
taken into consideration for purposes of priority 
(Decision IlY) . 
2. Panicum Michauxii Poir- (1816). A legitimate name. 
3 ' Briochloa mollis Kunth (1829). This is treated as a 
new name proposed by Kunth in 1829, since it has no 
status as a new combination (see above, under 1). It 
is illegitimate since Kunth ought to have adopted the 
earliest legitimate epithet, Michauxii (Decision IV). 
4 * Eriochloa Michauxii (Poir. ) Hitchc (1908). Legitimate . 
The correct name for the species under Eriochloa. 
Case B» Poa airoides Nutt . 
lm £°£ airoides Hutt. (1818). Not p. airoides Koel. 1802. 
Illegitimate, being a later homonym (Decision l). The 
epithet airoides used by Miehaux in 1818 gains no 
priority thereby (Decision IIjO« 
2. Poa NUttalliana Schult. (1824). A legitimate name. 
3 * Glyceria airoides A. Gray (1862). Not G» airoides 
Reichenb. (1829). Illegitimate , being a later homonym 
(Decision l). 
4. Pucclnellia airoides Wats, et Coult. (1890) . Illegitimate , 
because Watson and Coulter ought to have adopted the 
earliest legitimate epithet Nuttalliana (Decision iv) . 
5 * Puccinellia Nuttalliana (Schult.) Hitchc. (1912). 
Legitimate . The correct name for the species under 
Puccinellia. 
If you will compare cases A and B with those of 
Cleistochloa subjuncea and Calandrinia polyandra which I have 
already explained in my memorandum on Cleistochloa subjunc ea 
dated 13th February, 1934, you will find that they are 
entirely different in one respect. There was no' previously 
published legitimate epithet available when Hubbard chose the 
name Cleistochloa subjuncea and Bentham chose the name Calan drinia 
polyandra I Under Decision III they were free , though not 
obl iged , to adopt the epithets subjuncea and polyandra 
