STREPTACHNE R. BROWN AND PHE1DOCHLOA GENUS NOVUM, ETC. 15 
3. F. Mueller in First Census 133 (1882) has the following entry 
under Stipa : 
S. Streptachne, F.v.M. in journ. R..S. of N.S.W. 237 (1881) .... 
Q.— B.fl. VII, 572, 
4. Domin, in Biblioth. Bot. xx. heft 85, 342 (1915) transfers the 
species to Aristida as A. streptachne n. nom. citing 
Streptachne stipoides R.Br. Prodr. 174 (1810) and Stipa 
Streptachne F.Muell. in Journ. & Proc. Roy Soc. N.S. Wales 
xiv. 237 (1881)*; First Census 133 (1882) .... etc. 
5. Mueller’s reference in the First Census to Journ. & Proc. 
N.S. Wales xv. has no nomenclatural significance, for there 
is no reference, expressed or implied, to the combination 
Stipa Streptachne nor to the species Streptachne stipoides. 
The formula “Q. B.fl. VII, 572” in the First Census means 
that the species mentioned occurs in Queensland and was 
described in Bentham’s Flora Australiensis vii. 572. The 
only Queensland plant described by Bentham on this page 
is Streptachne stipoides R.Br. where a reference is given to 
R.Br. Prodr. 174 f. According to some recent interpreta- 
tions of Art. 37 of the International Rules by Airy-Shaw 
(Kew Bull. 1938, p. 256) and Sprague (Kew Bull. 1939, 
pp. 322-3) Mueller’s formula must be regarded as an 
indirect reference to Streptachne stipoides R.Br. Prodr. 174, 
and this would validate the publication of the combination 
Stipa Streptachne F.Muell. 
6. Though Stipa\ Streptachne F.Muell. is a valid combination, 
it is illegitimate, since the epithet stipoides should have been 
used, this having priority (as an epithet in the required 
position) and had not previously been used under Stipa 
(Art. 54). 
7. According to Art. 60, the publication of an epithet in an 
illegitimate combination must not be taken into consideration 
for purposes of priority. 
8. According to Art. 69, Domin was at liberty to use the epithet 
Streptachne when transferring the species to Aristida (since 
the epithet stipoides under Aristida would produce an 
illegitimate combination, namely a later homonym) though 
he was not obliged to do so, hut the combination Aristida 
streptachne then has to be treated as a new name (as was 
done by Domin), not as a new combination (as was done 
by Henrard), so that the date of the epithet would date 
from the combination under Aristida , namely 1915. 
9. The epithet in Aristida utilis dates from the date of publica- 
tion of this combination, namely 1907. 
10. So long as Streptachne sJtipoides and Aristida ntiUs are 
considered conspecific, Aristida utilis must be accepted as 
the legitimate name of the species. 
* This volume is xv., the journal for the year 1881, published in 1882, so that 
Mueller’s citation of merely the year 1881 is misleading; Domin added the number 
of the volume published in 1881, apparently without checking the reference. 
t Miss J. W. Vickery drew my attention to this nomenclatural significance of 
Mueller’s formula. 
