37 
Descriptive Notes on Papuan Plants, 
Vitis pubiflora, Miq. 1. c. 74, 
Vitis pisocarpa, Miq. 1, c. 79. 
Vitis diffusa, Miq. 1. c, 83. 
Vitis rostrata, Miq. 1. c. 85. 
Leea Zippeliana, Miq. 1. c. 101. 
Leea Sundaica, Miq. FI. Ind. Bat. I. pars. ii. 610. 
The moist jungles of the Papuan Mountains will likely prove to be 
teeming with plants of the viniferous order. Since many years I have 
rejected the term Ampelideae, though nearly universal in recent phyto- 
graphic works, as quite the same word is in full use by Ornithologists, 
having been adopted in 1831 already by Prince Bonaparte for that group 
of the Clamatores, of which Ampelis (Linne Syst. Nat. anno 1748) is 
the type. Surely in any system of nature ought not to re-occur precisely 
the same names for genera or orders both in the animal and plant-divi- 
sions; and for this reasonable principle Reichenbach and a few others 
have contended, though only with very scanty success. Moi'eover Jaume 
de Saint Hilaire established his original gi-oup of Viniferm with its also 
very expressive name in 1805 already (Expos. Famil. ii. 48, t. 79) 
according to Pfeiffer’s great and really most accurate work ; whereas the 
term Ampelidem occurs first in Humb. Bonpl. et Kunth, Nova Genera 
et Species Plantar, v. 222, as late as 1821. The less significant name 
Sarmentosse, adopted already in 1799 by Ventenat (Tableau du Regne 
Vegetale, iii. 1G7) in the limitation of Viniferse, was restricted from 
Linne’s Philosophia Botanica 32 anno 1751, where however it included 
both Mono- and Dicotyledonous plants, Sprengel in 1817 (Anieitung 
zur Kenntniss der Gewaechse, zweite Ausgabe, i. 219) restiicts the Sar- 
mentaceae to some liliaceous groups ; hence the appellation has become 
utterly ambiguous. 
ZYGOPHYLLE^. 
Tribulus terrestris. 
Linne, Spec. Plant. 387. 
Darnley’s Island; Macfarlane and Goldie. 
De rObel (Plantarum sen Stirpium leones ii. 84) already in 1581 
bestowed precisely the same generic and specific name on tliis well 
known plant without any further designation. There seems thus really 
no reason, as Sprengel and others long since have pointed out, why for 
this and numerous other plants the ancient authorities should not be 
D 2 
