STREPTACHNE R. BROWN AND PHEIDOCHLOA GENUS NOVUM, ETC. 19 
identity. The characters given (taken from Miquel, l.c., apparently 
a copy of the original description) of “nodis pilosis/’ “spiculae basi 
fasciculo piiorum orevium cinctae, ” “valvula inferior glumis paullo 
brevior leviter bidentata et in aristam scabram .... terminata,” 
suggest a relationship remote from the species discussed above, and in 
the absence of the type-specimens it is useless to guess at what it might 
be. There is no mention of it in Koorders’ Exkursionsflora von Java 
(1912). 
Four points arise from the inquiry into the nomenclature of 
& Ureptachne stipoides under Aristida. 
1. It does seem unfortunate that illegitimate though valid names 
are excluded from considerations of priority. A more logically practical 
method of dealing with matters of priority would seem to be along the 
lines suggested by Furtado (particularly in Gardens’ Bull., Straits 
Settlements, xi. 1-30: 1939), according to which names are classified 
according to validity, priorability and legitimacy. Validly published 
names may be priorable whether they are legitimate or not, and on 
transfer to another genus the oldest valid epithet priorable in the new 
position must be employed and such a transfer becomes a new 
combination. If such a procedure were incorporated in the Inter- 
national Rules, Stipa Streptachne would be a priorable name, although 
illegitimate and its epithet would have to be taken into consideration 
when the species is transferred to Aristida. It would be then compul- 
sory to use this epithet (dating from 1882) and the resulting new 
combination A. Streptachne (F.Muell.) Domin would be the legitimate 
name for the species. 
2. Art. 44 states that 4 ‘The name of a species .... is not validly 
published unless it is accompanied (1) by a description of the group, 
or (2) by the citation of a previously and effectively published 
description of the group under another name, or (3) by a plate or 
figure with analyses showing essential characters; .... ” The 
publication of the name of the species Streptachne stipoides does not 
conform to any of these conditions, for, as previously stated, (p. 11), 
the name is merely listed after the description of the genus. Yet the 
publication is quite unequivocal, is far more satisfying than many a 
“citation of a previously and effectively published description” and 
nobody seems ever to have questioned the validity of this form of 
publication. Art. 5 — “In the absence of a relevant rule .... estab- 
lished custom must be followed” — can be invoked, but surely such a 
case should be definitely covered by the Rules. 
3. In the Rules, no limits are set as to the interpretation of a 
“citation of a previously and effectively published description/’ In 
the case of Stipa Streptachne F.Muell., validity is allowed merely 
because no other Queensland plant happens to be described on the cited 
page of the Flora Australiensis. Can a reference be valid if no name 
of a taxonomic group is cited ? or again if there is no reference to the 
original description of a group ? 
4. Should validity be denied to the combination Stipa Streptachne 
F.Muell. in First Census, 133, on the grounds of absence of description 
and imperfect reference, attention must be paid to F. M. Bailey s Syn. 
Queensl. FI. 650 (1883), where under Stipa four sentences evidently 
taken from Bentham’s description of Streptachne stipoides follow the 
name S. Streptachne F.v.M. There is no other reference. According 
D 
